IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23072 of 2004 Between: Sri L. Nandu Sing S/o Kishan Singh R/o 1-43/6, Gachibowli, Serinlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerat, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District 2 Mr. Sudarshan Circle Inspector of Police, Rayadurgam PS., Serilingam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3 B. Narsing Rao S/o B. Venkat Narayana Plot No. 119 Telcom Nagar Gachi Bowli & Seri Lingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the first respondent and second respondent interference in settlement of Civil disputes are illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and to order the first respondent and second respondent not to restrain the personal liberty of this petitioner by interfering in civil disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent and to handover the said blank cheques and pass books to me and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BANDI.VARAPRASADA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER: Petitioner alleges that at the instance of the third respondent, the second respondent is calling him to the police station indiscriminately and harassing him. It is alleged that the second respondent is the tenant of the third respondent and he is pressurizing the petitioner to come into terms with the third respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the second respondent called the petitioner to the police station only once, after entering the complaint submitted by the third respondent in the general diary and further steps will be taken only if any crime is registered. Though various allegations are levelled by the petitioner against respondents 2 and 3, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same. The extent of relief that can be granted in the writs of this nature is only to ensure that a citizen is not put to harassment in the hands of the police. In this case, it has emerged that the third respondent submitted a complaint and the same was registered by the second respondent in the general diary. Calling the petitioner for verification of the truth or otherwise of the complaint or for taking further steps cannot be said to be illegal. However, the further steps can be taken only when a case is registered and not otherwise. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall not be required to attend the police station except when a specific case is registered. It is alleged that the second respondent has taken away the pass book and cheque book of the petitioner after summoning him to the police station. If that be so, the same shall be returned forthwith. No order as to costs. ----------------------- 15.12.2004 Note: Issue CC in three days. (BO) ksld To 1 The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad Commissioner ate Cyberabad, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District 2 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 3 Mr.Sudasrshan, C.I. of Police, Rayadurgam P.S., Serilingampally mandal, R.R.District. 4 Two CD copies.