THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12567 of 2010 Date:19.07.2010 Between: P.V. Koteswara Rao. ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, for Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioner claims to have purchased land to an extent of 277.77 sq. yards in plot No.16 in survey No.94, part of Nizampet Village and Gram Panchayat, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 13.04.2005. The petitioner further averred that he has obtained registered sale deed on 28.04.2010 and that one K. Rama Krishna i.e., respondent No.4 hatched a plan to dispossess the petitioner and accordingly, he lodged a report on the basis of which Crime No.164 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner. On the report lodged by the petitioner, Crime No.184 of 2010 was registered on 25.04.2010 against the said Rama Krishna. The petitioner filed O.S.No.796 of 2010 in the Court of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for an injunction. The petitioner obtained a temporary injunction in I.A.No.1010 of 2010 on 30.04.2010. The petitioner alleged that at the instance of respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.3 has been interfering in the petitioner’s possession of the abovementioned property. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the allegation of his interference in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 is denied. He has also denied respondent No.2 sending two constables to the petitioner’s residence directing him to come to the Police Station and on the petitioner going to the Police Station, respondent Nos.2 and 3 making him to sit in the Police Station since morning till evening for settling the civil disputes between him and respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is further stated that except registration of two crimes lodged by the petitioner and respondent No.4, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been interfering in the civil disputes. In the light of the stand taken by respondent No.3 that neither he nor respondent No.2 is interfering in the civil disputes, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.1, if in future respondent Nos.2 and 3 cause such interference in the civil disputes. In the event of any representation being made by the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall take appropriate action. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.15822 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th July, 2010 GHN