Shaik Mastanvali, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6238 of 2017 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "......to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in harassing the petitioner by calling him to Police Station regularly and insisting the petitioner to pay the amount and return the car to respondent No.5 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constriction of India and consequently direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the personal liberty and in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5. ..."

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Government Pleader for Home, on the basis of written instructions, submits as follows:

" It is submitted that on 06.02.2017, respondent No.5G.Venkateswarlu, Proprietor of M/s.Venkatasai Ganesh Auto Finance, Guntur District lodged a complaint with respondent No.3-Station House Officer, Karampudi Police Station, Guntur Rural District against the petitioner herein in respect of vehicle TATA Indico bearing No.AP 07 CC 5366. Basing on the said complaint, respondent No.3 enquired the matter and revealed that the petitioner herein purchased the vehicle TATA Indico bearing No. AP 07 CC 5366 on finance of Rs.4,50,000/-. Thereon, the petitioner paid the instalments of Rs.2 lakhs only and subsequently respondent No.5 came to know that the petitioner herein sold the said vehicle to one

Kishore on 20.12.2016. As the matter relates to money transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.5. Hence, respondent No.3 suggested respondent No.5 to approach the concerned Hon'ble Court for redressal. In this connection, the same was entered into the General Diary dated 06.02.2017.

It is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 and 4-Stastion House Officer and Head Constable of Karampudi Police Station, Guntur Rural District harassed the petitioner by calling him to police station regularly and insisted the petitioner to pay the amount and return the car to respondent No.5G.Venkateswarlu is not correct and baseless. It is submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 never interfered with the personal liberty and civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 at any point of time." In view of the same, no further orders are necessary in the present writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly closed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J Dt:03.03.2017 Note: Issue cc tomorrow.

(B/o) kdl