IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21056 of 2007 Between: Yelluru Satyanarayana S/o.Viswanath R/o.New Quality Foods (Udipi Hotel) Main Road, Ayodhyanagar, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-3, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Circle Inspector of Police, V Town Police Station, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Asst. Commissioner of Police, Central, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 N.Ramachandra Rao S/o.Narsaiah Shop No.8, Ilapuram Hotel premises, Narravari Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.JAYA REDDY For MR.K.SALRVABHOUMA RAO Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR HOME. Counsel for respondent No.4: MR.A.P.VENUGOPAL The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in interfering with a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and threatening the petitioner to make payments, having obtained his signatures and also the signatures of his brother on several blank papers and stamp papers, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Smt.G.Jaya Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner, in his affidavit, narrated several events touching upon the interference and harassment of respondent No.1 in the civil dispute between him and respondent No.4. In the view I am taking, there is no need for dealing with the said allegations in detail. While giving notice, this Court on 09-10- 2007, directed respondent No.1 not to interfere in any manner with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that on the complaint given by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 registered a criminal case vide Crime No.462 of 2007 on 24-09-2007 and that as a counter blast, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Since a crime is registered against the petitioner, this Court cannot prevent respondent No.1 from investigating into the same and proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, in the guise of investigation into the criminal case, respondent No.1 shall not harass the petitioner. If respondent No.1 indulges in such harassment in future, the petitioner shall be free to file a private complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate against respondent No.1 apart from giving complaint to respondents 2 and 3 for initiating departmental action against him. As regards the allegation of taking signatures on blank papers, in the absence of a counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the said allegation cannot be rejected as wholly baseless. If respondent No.1 had obtained the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise necessary pleas in any proceeding, if and when initiated by respondent No.4 or any third party against the petitioner, on the basis of such signatures in any Court of law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 14-03-2008 LUR