THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12948 OF 2010 Dated 4th August, 2010 Between: A.Vanaja Rani …Petitioner And Principal Secretary, Home Department and five others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Gopala Krishna Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri Madhava Rao Ambadipudi The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondents 3 to 5 not to harass the petitioner and her family members. At the hearing, Sri P.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that including respondent No.3 in the relief portion of the writ petition is a mistake and that the relief claimed by the petitioner is confined only to respondents 4 and 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri Madhava Rao Ambadipudi, learned counsel representing respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 is the legally wedded wife (second wife) of the father of the petitioner. There appeared to have certain matrimonial disputes such as a petition for divorce filed by the petitioner’s father and an application for payment of maintenance by respondent No.6. The marital life of the petitioner’s father and respondent No.6 appeared to have run into rough weather. Allegations are levelled by the petitioner and respondent No.6 against each other on the welfare of the petitioner’s father. Be that as it may, the immediate cause for the petitioner to file the present writ petition is that on the complaint given by respondent No.6, respondents 4 and 5 have been harassing her. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that both the petitioner and respondent No.6 have lodged separate reports against each other in connection with the welfare of the petitioner’s father and that respondent No.5, who has received the said reports, have merely made G.D entries and after preliminary investigation, he has not registered the cases on either of the reports on being satisfied that the disputes between the petitioner and respondents No.6 are civil in nature. She has further stated that except calling the petitioner as a part of preliminary enquiry and eliciting information from her, respondents 4 and 5 have not harassed her. She has also stated that as no criminal case has been registered, the petitioner is not needed by the police and that they will not interfere with the life or personal liberty of the petitioner. The above submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader are placed on record and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th August, 2010 vrn