THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25869 OF 2009 Dated 8th June, 2010 Between: Gurram Venkateswarlu and 2 others. …Petitioners And The Government of A.P., and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.G.Jagadeeswar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr.P.Ganga Rami Reddy The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties. I have heard Sri G.Jagadeeswar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioners are agriculturists. Respondent No.4 is their sister. The petitioners and respondent No.4 are locked up in disputes pertaining to family properties. The petitioners filed O.S.No.138 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, for partition and separate possession of 3/7th share in the properties against respondent No.4 and their three other brothers. The petitioners filed I.A.No.346 of 2009 in the said suit for temporary injunction against the respondents therein including respondent No.4. The petitioners claim that by order, dated 12-06-2009, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, granted temporary injunction, which is being extended from time to time. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.4 approached respondent No.3 and that under her influence, the latter has called petitioner No.2 to the Police Station and abused him in a filthy language for not permitting respondent No.4 to enjoy the property. The petitioners alleged that though respondent No.3 was informed about the existence of an order of injunction, he continued to interfere in the civil disputes and that the petitioners submitted representations to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudur, on 13-11- 2009 and the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, on 12-11-2009 and that no action is taken thereon. The petitioners have therefore filed the present Writ Petition. This Court, while admitting the Writ Petition, on 27- 11-2009 directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4. This Court however made it clear that if there is any complaint regarding commission of any offence, the said order will not preclude respondent Nos.2 and 3 from investigating into the same. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter-affidavit wherein while claiming that she has the legitimate rights over the property in question stated that on 17-10-2009, the petitioners abused her in filthy language when she sought to plough the land by hiring a tractor and that she has given complaint to respondent No.3 on 18-10-2009 and that as no action was taken thereon, she has given further reports on 23-11-2009 and 15-12-2009. It is further stated that in view of pendency of this Writ Petition, respondent No.3 is not taking any action on the said reports. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submitted that neither of respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.4. In my opinion, the Police cannot interfere in civil disputes pending between the petitioners and respondent No.4. The statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is placed on record and respondent No.3 is restrained from interfering in civil disputes even in future unless a Court of competent jurisdiction passes an order requiring him to do so. As regards the grievance of respondent No.4 that respondent No.3 is not taking any action on her reports in view of pendency of this Writ Petition, I do not find any justification in the said grievance because as noted above this Court while granting interim order on 27-11-2009 specifically observed that the said order will not preclude respondent Nos.2 and 3 from taking action on the complaints if any made by any party. Irrespective of the pendency of this Writ Petition, respondent No.3 would have been entitled to take action on the reports given by respondent No.4, if he was satisfied that the contents thereof revealed commission of an offence. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 27-11-2009, is vacated and WPMP.No.33685 of 2009 and WVMP.No.960 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 8th June, 2010 lur