IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24378 of 2007 Between: Mule Kuchelreddy S/o. Erukala Reddy Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 The Sub Inspector of Police, Marripudi P.S. Prakasam District. 3 Visthalamuri Chenna Reddy @ Bukkalabhai S/o. Ramulu Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Visthalamuri Chennareddy S/o.Peda Chennaiah Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. 5 Visthalamuri Narayana S/o.Ramulu @ Buttaiahgari Ramulu Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. 6 Visthalamuri Venkateswarlu S/o. Marri Chennaiah @ Chennareddy, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. 7 Mule Narasimha Reddy @ Chanti S/o. Obulu @ Narasaiahgari Obulu, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. 8 Marri Chennaiah @ Chenna Reddy S/o. Chennaiah Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondents 3 to 8: MR. M. BRAHMA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in taking action on representation, dated 20.08.2007 of the petitioner as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action against respondent Nos.3 to 8 by protecting him, his family and witnesses in Crime No.27 of 2007 of Marripudi Police Station. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that on the complaint given by the petitioner on 09.07.2007, Crime No.27 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 506 IPC read with 34 IPC was registered on 15.07.2007 and during the course of investigation, respondent Nos.3 to 8 were arrested on 18.07.2007 and produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili, Prakasam District, who remanded them to judicial custody. It is further stated that investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed in the said Court, which took the case on file as P.R.C.No.15 of 2007 and the same is pending. As regards the request of the petitioner for providing police protection, it is mentioned that the police are always ready and willing to provide protection to the petitioner, his family and the witnesses in the event of any threat to their lives from respondent Nos.3 to 8. Sri M.Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8 submitted that his clients were falsely implicated in the criminal case and that they have no intention of causing any harm to the petitioner, his family or any of the witnesses in the crime. In view of categorical assertion of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner, his family members and the witnesses will be protected and the statement of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to approach this Court if respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not provide necessary protection to him, his family members and witnesses in the event of any threat from respondent Nos.3 to 8. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.31742 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th APRIL, 2008 kvni