IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9810 of 2004 Between: 1 Orugunta Venkat Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy, R/o Giddaluru Village, Saidapuram Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Orugunta Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o Ramana Reddy, R/o Giddaluru Village, Saidapuram Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Station House Officer, Saidapuram Village & Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in calling the petitioners to the police station and causing harassment and hardship to them demanding the payment of amount under a pro-note as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustified, unconstitutional, unwarranted, unreasonable, unconstitutional and unsustainable and direct the Respondent to refrain from interfering in any manner with the civil disputes Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners alleging that the respondent–Station House Officer is calling the petitioners illegally without there being any complaint against them and in fact at the instance of private individuals, who are pressurizing the petitioners to pay the amount due to third parties under alleged pro-note. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent has no right or power to resort to such activities in directing the petitioners to pay any amount under alleged pro-note to third parties. Hence, sought for a direction to the respondent not to interfere with the activities of the petitioners apart from life and personal liberty of the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. 4. The Station House Officer, who is impleaded as respondent, has no power to interfere with the civil disputes between the individuals i.e., petitioners and third parties, if any. The respondent is equally has no power to call the petitioners in the absence of any case registered against them as well as pressurizing them to pay amount to third parties under the alleged pro-notes. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondent not to call the petitioners to the police station as well as not to interfere with their personal life and liberty. Note: Furnish C.C in 3 days B/o. va ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER 17.06.2004 va To 1) The Hon’ble Sri Justice SARJ for his lordship’s kind perusal 2) The Station House Officer, Saidapuram Village & Mandal, Nellore district 3) 2 CCs to G.P. for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4) 2 CD copies