IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3828 of 2008 Between: Hondal Prasad … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, RR District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Praeen Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3828 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to arrest the petitioner within the State of Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of a complaint filed by respondent No.6, as illegal and arbitrary. In connection with the death of one Sri Hodal Purushotham Das, the petitioner is apprehending arrest. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition for the abovementioned relief. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that Crime No.941 of 2007 was registered in connection with the death of the said Purushotham Das and a final report was filed by the Andhra Pradesh Police under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Magistrate of II Class referring the death as accidental death due to drowning. He also submitted that as far as respondent Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, there is no intention of arresting the petitioner in view of closure of the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that respondent No.6 filed a private complaint in Alighar, Uttar Pradesh and in that connection there is a likelihood of respondent Nos.1 to 5 arresting the petitioner without following due process of law. In my considered view, this submission is wholly without basis. The petitioner has not filed any material in support of the said allegation. Even if respondent No.6 filed a private complaint, there is no basis for the petitioner’s apprehension that respondent Nos.1 to 5 would arrest him without following due process of law. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5001 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2008 ES