IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10154 of 2010 Between: Mohd. Abdul Waheed & another. … Petitioners And The Station House Officer, Police Station House Tandur, Ranga Reddy Dist., & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10154 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action respondent No.1 in calling the petitioners to the police station and threatening them with registration of criminal cases if the marriage of petitioner No.2 is not performed with the daughter of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.1. Petitioner No.1 is an Ex-Tahsildar and petitioner No.2 is his son. The petitioners averred that respondent No.2 posing himself as a community leader introduced respondent No.3 to petitioner No.1 and proposed that his son i.e., petitioner No.2 marries the daughter of respondent No.2. It is alleged that as petitioner No.1 declined the said offer, respondent No.3 in collusion with respondent No.2 prevailed over respondent No.1 and the latter has been harassing the petitioners by calling them to the police station and insisting petitioner No.2 to marry the daughter of respondent No.3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of the writ petition, two criminal cases, namely, Crime Nos. 86 and 91 of 2010 have been registered against the petitioners. As respondent No.1 failed to controvert the allegations made by the petitioners, the allegations contained in the affidavit deserve to be accepted. Respondent No.1 is restrained from interfering in the disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, as two criminal cases have been registered, respondent No.1 is entitled to proceed with the investigation of the said crimes strictly in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.13031 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.07.2010. ES