THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6078 OF 2010 Dated 18th March, 2010 Between: Yamala Narsing Rao …Petitioner And The Station House Officer and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Vara Prasad Rao Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate and effective steps against respondents 3 and 4 and their relatives against their interference in the petitioner’s personal life, liberty and freedom and that of his family members. The petitioner also sought for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide protection to him. The gist of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the petitioner’s daughter was lured by respondents 3 and 4 to indulge in certain prohibited financial transactions; that with the interference of the husband of respondent No.3, the family members of respondents 3 and 4 started demanding money from one Sunitha, who has a part in business dealings with respondents 3 and 4, and that after sudden disappearance of Sunitha, the family members of respondents 3 and 4 hatched a plan to extract money from the daughter of the petitioner. Several allegations have been made in the writ petition against respondents 3 and 4 and their family members in connection with the alleged harassment of the petitioner by them. It is further pleaded that being unable to bear with the said harassment, the petitioner filed a civil suit before the II-Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad for injunction and the injunction application is posted to 20.02.2010 for consideration and granting of relief. The petitioner claimed to have approached respondent No.1 with a complaint against respondent No.3 that the latter threatened the petitioner with dire consequences if he fails to pay Rs.4 lakhs and that as no action has been taken by respondents 1 and 2 on the petitioner’s complaint, he filed the present writ petition. From the nature of the allegations referred to above, it appears that there are serious disputes between the petitioner’s family and the families of respondents 3 and 4 over certain money transactions involving the petitioner’s daughter. The petitioner sought for an injunction against the said respondents and even according to him, the injunction petition is pending. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to direct the police to give protection to the petitioner from the alleged harassment by respondents 3 and 4. However, if the complaint given by the petitioner indicates that a cognizable offence has been committed by respondents 3 and 4 or the husband of respondent No.3; respondent No.1 shall examine the same and take appropriate action. If no crime is registered on the petitioner’s complaint by respondent No.1, the petitioner shall be free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint . The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.7827 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 18th March, 2010 vrn