HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 21247 OF 2010 . DATED 20th JULY, 2011. BETWEEN Gogineni Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Krishna at Machilipatnam and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 21247 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in interfering with the civil disputes in collusion with respondents 5 to 8 as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased jointly along with his son the house site admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents in R.S.No. 350 of Ravivaripalem village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District, under possessory contract sale deed dated 1.4.2000 from one Smt.Gogineni Manga Bhavani for a valid consideration and thereafter proposed to construct a house therein under the A.P. Housing Scheme. Based on his representations to the Government, two small houses were sanctioned under the housing scheme and the Mandal Revenue Officer of Mopidevi mandal granted possession certificate to the petitioner in the year 2000. It is his case that after obtaining necessary approval from the Gram Panchayat, Mopidevi under proceedings dated 29.01.2002, the petitioner along with his son jointly constructed two portions in the subject property and they have also mortgaged the same to the A.P. Housing Department. It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that there are civil disputes in respect of the subject property in between the petitioner and sixth respondent; that respondents 5 to 8 are trying to trespass into the subject house property with the support of the village people, more particularly at the behest of the fourth respondent, who is acting completely on the command of respondents 5 to 8; and that anticipating the same, respondents 5 to 8 are trying to grab the subject property. It has been averred that in those circumstances, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No. 34 of 2010 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda on 11.3.2010 seeking a permanent injunction against respondents 5 to 8 restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and obtained an order of temporary injunction in I.A.No. 163 of 2010. To counter blast the same, Respondent No. 8 also filed a suit in OS.No. 29 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avainagadda against the petitioner, his wife and son seeking a declaration of right and title over subject property and for possession thereof. It has been further averred that the sixth respondent also filed a private complaint before the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda and that the same has been referred to the police for investigation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that taking advantage of the private complaint, the fourth respondent is completely acting adverse to the interest of the petitioner at the instance of respondents 5 to 8 and interfering with the dispute in respect of the subject property, which is purely civil in nature. It is his further grievance that despite the interim injunction granted by a competent civil Court in his favour, the fourth respondent who is obliged under law to investigate the matter without any prejudice so as to find out the truth and to place the truth before the Court concerned has completely ignored his obligation under law in the matter and is settling the civil dispute as if it is a penal in nature and has apprehended the petitioner and kept him in custody illegally. It is also stated that the fourth respondent intends to settle the civil dispute under the colour of exercising the power for extraneous considerations and is thereby completely infringing the rights guaranteed under the Constitution to the petitioner and his family members. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent 8 on his behalf and on behalf of respondents 5 to 7 denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. He admitted in the counter affidavit as to the filing of the suit in O.S.No. 34 of 2010 by the petitioner and obtaining of interim injunction thereof and also his filing of the suit in O.S.No. 29 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. However, he stated that he has also obtained temporary injunction in I.A. No. 287 of 2010 in O.S.No. 29 of 2010 , dated 06.04.2010 restraining the petitioner and his family members from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the part of the subject property, but however, the petitioner suppressed the same in his writ affidavit. In the counter affidavit, It is the specific case of respondent 8 before the Court below that the wife of the petitioner herein being the owner of the subject property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 05.10.1984 constructed a terraced building consisting of four rooms, later offered the said property for sale and pursuant to thereto, he has purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2004 for a valuable consideration and due to close relationship in between them, the petitioner and his wife requested him to allow to reside in the subject house property and thereafter, on his demand, they have vacated the northern side two rooms out of four rooms in the subject building, in which his mother and grand parents are residing. It is further stated that as the petitioner, his son and wife are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the eight respondent’s mother being the possessor of the subject building, filed a private complaint before the court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Avanigadda on 8.7.2010 and the same was forwarded to the Police, who registered the same as FIR.No. 75 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448, 452, 379, 380, 411, 506 r/w. 34 IPC and the same is under investigation. From the above factual matrix, it is clear that a civil dispute pertaining to the subject property is sailing among the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8. It appears that both the petitioner and respondent 8 have instituted their respective suits separately before the competent Civil Courts and the same are said to be pending adjudication. Further, the mother of the respondent 8, who is respondent 7 herein, being the possessor of the part of the subject building also filed a private complaint before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, Krishna District on 08.07.2010 alleging that the petitioner, his son and wife are interfering with her possession and enjoyment and the same has been forwarded to the Station House Officer, Avanigadda, who registered it as Cr. No. 75 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448, 452, 379, 380, 411,506 r/w 34 IPC, which is stated to be under investigation. Pursuant to the said crime only, the petitioner was apprehended and he was remanded to judicial custody by the aforesaid Court, and was later released on bail. As such, it cannot be said that taking advantage of the private complaint, the fourth respondent is acting adverse to the interest of the petitioner at the behest of the unofficial respondents. Based on the private complaint filed by respondent 7, the criminal Court ordered the police to enquire into the matter under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and during the course of investigation only the petitioner was apprehended by the police and was remanded to judicial custody by the criminal Court. Further, perusal of the material on record reveals that though the petitioner has made a reference to the suit in OS.No. 29 of 2010 filed by respondent 8, but he did not choose to disclose as to the order of temporary injunction granted by the Civil Court in favour of respondent 8 restraining the petitioner, his wife and son from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the part of the subject building property. It is therefore obvious that the petitioner has suppressed the said material fact in his writ affidavit. It is well settled principle of law that Police cannot interfere with civil disputes and even the police have no power to interfere in civil disputes and coerce the people to compromise in their civil disputes. Time and again the Supreme Court held that when a dispute between the two citizens is of a civil nature, no crime need be registered, and the police have no jurisdiction to interfere with the civil dispute. Further, when there is a civil litigation pending adjudication either before a court of law or before a tribunal, the police have no jurisdiction to interfere with the so called civil disputes. Therefore any interference by police in a pending civil dispute or a potential civil dispute between two citizens or two groups of citizens is not within the province of the police. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------ ------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 20th July, 2011. Msnro