IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9986 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt.K.Sai Rani W/o.K.Narsing Rao R/o.H.No.6-1-486/30, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 Smt.A.Komaramma W/o.A.Kasinath R/o.H.No.6-2-53/1, Balanagar H.A.L. Post, Hyderabad. 3 A.Srinivas S/o.A.Kasinath R/o.H.No.6-2-53/1, Balanagar H.A.L. Post, Hyderabad. 4 Raju S/o.Durgaiah R/o.H.No.6-2-53/1, Balanagar H.A.L. Post, Hyderabad. 5 S.Saibharathi W/o.S.Mallikarjun R/o.6-2-28/2/B, Harijanbasti, Balanagar , Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Inspector of Police, P.S. Balanagar, Cyberabad. 2 M.Sanjeeva S/o.Narsing Rao R/o.7-150/1, Raju Colony, Balanagar, Cyberabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in calling the petitioners to the Police Station and harassing them in the guise of enquiry into the pending crime, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.1. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to give notice to respondent No.2. The petitioners claimed to have succeeded to the property admeasuring Ac.0.12 guntas in Survey No.79 of Balanagar Village and Mandal through their ancestors. They alleged that their father expired on 27.08.1998 and respondent No.2 allegedly sought to grab the said property and that having managed respondent No.1, he got a criminal case registered against the petitioners vide F.I.R.No.69 of 2008, in which the petitioners were released on bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioners alleged that at the instance of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has been bringing pressure on the petitioners to compromise with respondent No.2 by often calling them to the Police Station. In the affidavit, the petitioners failed to give specific instances of the alleged interference by respondent No.1. The allegations are generic in nature. Notwithstanding the same, I am of the view that there is no justification for respondent No.1 to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 except to the extent of investigating into the criminal case registered and pending against the petitioners. Unless respondent No.1 is satisfied that the petitioners indulged in commission of any cognizable offence and their presence is required in connection with the investigation, he is not entitled to violate the privacy of the petitioners and interfere in their personal liberty. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.13144 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st MAY, 2008 kvni