1. ' This is the third petition on similar facts with almost similar relief. Through this petition, the petitioner a relative of one Baboo and neighbourer of Abdul Sattar has prayed for following relief:--
(a) To restrain the respondents Nos.8 and 9 from again entering the house of the petitioner and subject them to torture and harass them and also restrain them from harassing, torturing and subjecting them to physical torture.
(b) Respondents Nos.8 and 9 also be directed not to repeat the threats of dire consequences and/or arrest or involve any of her family members in any case without due process of law and/or without lawful authority.
(c) To restrain the respondents Nos.8 and 9 not to exceed the limits of their powers and/or to perform their duties within the limits of law.
(d) To direct the D.I.-G., Hyderabad for issuing necessary orders for registration of F.I.R. For taking law in their hands and illegalities committed by the respondents Nos.8 and 9.
(e) To appoint some senior God-fearing and honest officer to investigate the matter thoroughly and to make enquiry about the misuse of powers, highhandedness in the form of violation of fundamental rights and also other laws of the land.
(f) To pay Rs,one lakh as compensation for putting the petitioner and other family members in wrongful confinement and for subjecting them to mental and physical torture to be recovered from the personal pocket of respondents Nos.8 and 9.
(g) To grant cost of the petition Rs,one Lakh to be recovered from the personal pocket of respondents Nos.8 and 9.
(h) To give any other relief and remedy which is deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court.
2. ' We have examined the comments. According to the comments no case is registered against Baboo. The respondents Nos.8 and 9 have admitted the visit to Sattar's house who was not present at his residence. The purpose of visit was only to execute warrants issued by Judge, Special Court (Customs and Taxation), Karachi but Sattar was not present in his house who is the neighbourer of the petitioner. The respondents have denied the visit or raid to the house of the petitioner on any day or in between the night of 14th and 15th February, 2000.
3. The counsel for the petitioner is satisfied if the petition is disposed of in the following terms:-- ' That the respondents will act in accordance with law while discharging their duties and will not cause any harassm ent.
4. ' The petitioner may invoke the jurisdiction of competent Court for the redressal of her grievance to claim compensation.
5. ' In view of the above observations this petition is disposed of.