HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24746 of 2010 Date: 23rd November 2010 Between : S.K. Basheed. …….Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24746 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property bearing No.8-2-547/31/1 in Sy.No.129/65, situated at Road No.7, Banjara Hills, in old T.S.No.2, Block-M, Ward- 11 of Shaikpet village, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the aforesaid property by way of registered sale deed, dated 31.07.2004, from its earlier owner Mr.Saggurti Ravi. It is stated that when there was interference by the respondents, the petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S.No.631 of 2010 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, against respondents 4 and 5, and that in the said suit, interim injunction orders have been passed in favour of petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when such proceedings are pending, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, there is interference by the 2nd respondent. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent- Inspector of Police. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that complaints were filed against the petitioner, by one Mr.Hanumantha Rao, Sri B.Venkataratnam (respondent No.4 herein) and Sri A.Krishna, basing on which, three cases were registered in Crime No.429 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 448 of IPC, in Crime No.35 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, and in Crime No.383 of 2008 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station. While narrating the stages of investigation in the aforesaid crimes, it is stated in the counter that the Police never interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, but only investigated the aforesaid crimes to file final reports. As much as the 3rd respondent has investigated the crimes registered against the petitioner, it cannot be termed as interference by the Police. In view of the statement made by the 3rd respondent that they have not interfered with the possession of petitioner over the aforesaid land, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, placing on record the said statement. However, it is open for the Police to proceed with the investigation in the cases pending against the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd November 2010 ajr