THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.27293 of 2010 Dated: 16.12.2010 Between: Mallarapu Somasekhar .. Petitioner. And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in repeatedly insisting the petitioner to appear before them and further insisting him for withdrawal of the complaint filed by him against respondent No.5, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the 5th respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the petitioner on 15.03.2009, for her business purpose, and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. It is further stated that the 5th respondent has issued a cheque bearing No.229551 dated 06.10.2010 drawn on Andhra Bank, Main Bazaar Branch, Eluru, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards discharge of the amount borrowed by her, and when the same was presented in the Bank, it was dishonoured with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. As such, the petitioner filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and the same is numbered as CC.Sr.No.10105 of 2010, which is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the complaint filed by him, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against the 5th respondent is pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, the respondents 3 and 4, at the instance of the 5th respondent, are repeatedly insisting him to appear before them and withdraw the complaint filed by him against the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent filed her counter affidavit, wherein, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that on the basis of the complaint lodged by her, a case in Crime No.182 of 2010 on the file of I Town Police Station, Eluru, was registered against the petitioner and another, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 354, 365, 366, 420, 384, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is also stated that the petitioner, having come to know about registration of a case in Crime No.182 of 2010 against him, approached this Court and filed this writ petition by making false allegations so as to evade his arrest in connection with the crime registered against him. Based on the written instructions sent by the 4th respondent, learned counsel for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that on the complaint lodged by the 5th respondent, a case in Crime No.182 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that during the course of investigation in the crime registered against the petitioner, seven witnesses were examined and all of them corroborated the complaint lodged by the 5th respondent and that, after completion of the investigation, final report was filed before the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, on 27.11.2010 and the same is yet to be taken on file. It is further submitted that the allegations that respondents 3 and 4 are insisting the petitioner to withdraw the complaint lodged by him against the 5th respondent is false and incorrect and the petitioner approached this Court with false allegations, in view of the investigation undertaken by respondents 3 and 4 on the complaint lodged by the 5th respondent. The complaint stated to have been filed by the petitioner against the 5th respondent is still at S.R. stage. From a perusal of the said complaint, a copy of which is placed before this Court, it is evident that it was filed without mentioning the date on it. However, from the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent and the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Home, it is clear that on a complaint filed by the 5th respondent, a case in Crime No.182 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner and another and, after completion of investigation therein, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. However, the investigation taken up against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.182 of 2010 cannot be construed as interference with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner. Further, the allegation of the petitioner that he is being insisted for withdrawal of the complaint lodged by him against the 5th respondent is specifically denied. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, placing on record the submissions of the Government Pleader for Home that respondents 3 and 4 are not insisting the petitioner for withdrawal of the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. At the same time, it is made clear that the investigation made on the complaint filed by the 5th respondent shall not be construed as interference by respondents 3 and 4. Subject to the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 16.12.2010 v v