THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1179 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioners seek a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 5 in not taking action against respondent No.6 pursuant to the complaints, dated 23.11.2009, 30.11.2009 and 12.12.2009, as illegal and arbitrary and direct them to return Rs.100/- worth stamp paper, on which, the police have taken their signatures. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased certain gold ornaments weighing about 200 grams from respondent No.6 for about Rs.2,70,000/- but in view of the increased price in gold, respondent No.6 along with some others attacked on them with a demand to return such gold ornaments and abused them. It is stated that in spite of their lodging complaint, no steps are being taken to register the crime against respondent No.6. Although there is an appearance on behalf of respondent No.6 and the matter was adjourned for filing counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.6, no counter-affidavit is filed. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, while denying various allegations levelled by the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioners filed representations before the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District on 30.11.2009 and 12.12.2009 alleging that respondent No.6 and others have threatened them to kidnap their family members and kill them and abused them in filthy language. It is further stated that the said representation has been forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Rajampet Urban, Kadapa by the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa vide CCC.No.2587 of 2009, dated 30.11.2009 and based on the same, enquiry was conducted. It is further stated that during enquiry, respondent No.6 asserted that the gold ornaments weighing 200 grams were pledged by him with the petitioners and obtained loan of Rs.2,70,000/-, but when he approached them to release his pledged gold ornaments, the petitioners had sold away the same illegally. It is further stated that detailed enquiry was conducted into the petitioners’ representation, which was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, and it revealed that the contents of such representation are false and baseless. The respondents denied the allegations that petitioner No.2 was detained in the police station and they obtained signatures of the petitioners on blank stamp paper worth Rs.100/-. It is further stated that there was a complaint before the police against petitioner No.2 on 16.09.2009 by one Smt. Kasturi Narsamma, who complained that petitioner No.2 is an agent of Sriram Chits, Rajampet, Kadapa and out of Rs.60,000/-, which is payable to her, petitioner No.2 had paid only an amount of Rs.20,000/- and cheated her. Based on such complaint, a case in Crime No.93 of 2009 was registered against petitioner No.2 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 463 IPC and he himself surrendered before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet. It is also stated that the respondents have merely investigated into the crime registered against petitioner No.2 and the same cannot be treated as harassment. From the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have categorically denied any receipt of the complaint by respondent No.5. However, with regard to the representation filed before the Superintendent of Police, the same was forwarded to respondent No.5 and it was found that the same is false. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the respondents have not taken any action. Further, though it is alleged that they obtained signatures of the petitioners on a blank stamp paper, the respondents have categorically denied the same. When the complaint was lodged against petitioner No.2 by Smt. Kasturi Narsamma, the respondents registered the same as a case in Crime No.93 of 2009 against petitioner No.2 and investigated into the same. Merely petitioner No.2 was enquired into with reference to the crime registered based on the complaint lodged by Smt. Kasturi Narsamma, it cannot be said that there is harassment by the police and they failed to take action on the complaint of the petitioners. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th JULY, 2010. kvni