ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in not giving protection to the petitioner from respondent No. 8 and their henchmen is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the local feudal henchmen of MLA and they have been resorting to violation acts to stop the petitioner from highlighting the cause of local poorer sections of the people. Petitioner had complained against these people to the police authorities in January 2012. In fact, the petitioner was driven of her house and this house has been occupied by the henchmen of the MLA and it is claimed that the local office of the MLA and his party will be functioning from that house. The petitioner made a detailed representation to the DSP requesting to give adequate protection to her. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had approached the State Human Rights Commission feeling danger for her life. As a response, the Superintendent of Police had made a sweeping allegation that she is used to such kind of activity. The version of the police is in tune with the MLA who has influenced the local police. It is further stated the representations filed by the petitioner are pending with the respondent police and they are refusing to register FIR against MLA. Hence the inaction on the part of the police authorities and their active support to the respondents No. 8 to 10 and their henchmen is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The 5th respondent has filed Counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that on a complaint of Smt. Mala Ramulamma of Arundati Nagar, Kurnool lodged with the III Town Police Station, Kurnool, a case in Cr. No. 135/2013 under Sections 420, 506 IPC was registered on 2.6.2013 against the petitioner herein as she collected money from her and others for providing house site pattas and accordingly cheated them. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above FIR. It is further contended that on enquiry by this respondent, it reveals that there is o threat viewed from any angle to the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above FIR. It is further contended that on enquiry by this respondent, it reveals that there is o threat viewed from any angle to the petitioner herein. However, in due obedience to the orders of this court, this respondent is ready and willing to provide protection to the petitioner for her life and liberty as and when the petitioner approaches this respondent after obtaining proper threat perception. 4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner while denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit contended that the petitioner reserve her right to file defamation suit against the Inspector of Police for making baseless allegations against the petitioner without any proof. She never borrowed any money or cheated people. It is respondent authorities who are olluded with local mafia/MLA and are encouraging their illegal activities. Even today the leaders of faction of local MLA are trying to grab away the lands of landless poor women. The authorities have consistently failed to act according the provisions of law and follow due process. This action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner standing out for local women and their rights and was subjected to threat in the year 2013. Even today the petitioner voice out and stand for rights of the women without any benefit in return and this is the reason why authorities have developed grudge against the petitioner because she has always been coming in way of illegal acts of MLA whom respondent authorities are colluded and are acting on his behest. 5. Heard Sri P. Srivyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner made several representations, the police authorities are refusing to register FIR against MLA. Strangely the police officers are advising the petitioner either to stop the organizational activities or quit Kurnool. The attacks upon the petitioner are part of public record but the police administration of Kurnool district is literally in the pocket of 8th respondent, he further submits that the respondents No. 6 and 7 especially the 7th respondent is acting as if they are part of the faction led by the local MLA. False cases were also foisted upon the petitioner. False cases were also foisted upon the petitioner. Learned counsel mainly argued that the petitioner made a complaint against 8th respondent, who is the sitting MLA in Kurnool District and made allegations that the respondents No. 1 to 7 are not providing protection to the petitioner against the 8th respondent. The 5th respondent has not stated anything about the complaint made by the petitioner in his counter affidavit also. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents submits that the 5th respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is involved in a case in Crime No. 135/2013 under Sections 420, 506 IPC and it was registered on 2.6.2013 against the petitioner as she collected money from her and others for providing of house site pattas and accordingly cheated them and the petitioner herein as shown as sole accused in the FIR. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the complainant and other witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, as per the evidence, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner-accused that she had committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. Since the date of registration of the FIR, she is absconding. Her whereabouts are not known till date. By suppressing all the real facts and to escape from the criminal liability, she approached this Court by way of filing this petition. There are no merits int eh present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. On perusing the material available on record and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that, as the petitioner reserves her right to file defamation suit against the individuals in proper forum, she is at liberty to approach and file defamation suit before the appropriate authority. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. However, it is made clear the petitioner shall be at liberty to file suit for damages on the basis of so called defamation, if permissible under the law. No costs. 10. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.