IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7025 of 2009 Between: Smt. Majeti Padmavathi (Hindu) W/o. Late Rama Chandra Rao R/o. Gubbalavari Street, Rama Chandraraopet, Eluru, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 Deputy Inspector General of Police Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Inspector of Police Eluru Town Circle Eluru. 4 The Sub-Inspector of Police Eluru II Town P.S. Eluru, West Godavari District. 5 Kocherlakota Lakshmi Raghunatha Krishna Sarma (Hindu) S/o. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao R/o. Gubbalavari Street, Rama Chandraraopeta, Eluru, West Godavari District. 6 K.V. Subrahmanyam (Hindu) S/o. not known to the petitioner Sai Vidya Mandir, Mothevari Thota, Ashok Nagar, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. V.V.S.S.KAMESWARA RAO FOR MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner and in the civil disputes between her and respondent Nos.5 and 6, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit, the petitioner made several allegations against respondent No.4 for allegedly interfering in the civil disputes between her and respondent Nos.5 and 6 at the instance of the latter. In the light of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.4, it is not necessary to refer to those allegations in detail. It will suffice to note that respondent No.4 has taken the stand that as the complaint filed by respondent No.5 before the District Legal Services Authority, West Godavari, was referred to him, he summoned the petitioner and spoke to her over phone in connection with the enquiry and not with a view to interfere with either the civil disputes or her life and personal liberty. In paragraph 10, he categorically stated that the police have never interfered in civil disputes and sensing that the police may take action on the complaint filed by respondent No.5 before the District Legal Services Authority, West Godavari, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is needless to observe that while dealing with the complaints pertaining to disputes over immovable properties, it is necessary for the police to draw a line. Unless the allegations constitute commission of an offence, the parties should be relegated to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In the guise of enquiry into the complaint, it is not permissible for the police to interfere with either the civil disputes or the citizens’ life and liberty, which are precious and well guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the District Legal Services Authority referred the complaint to the police, they would do well to enquire into the same and submit an appropriate report. In the guise of such enquiry, they should not interfere with either the civil disputes or life and liberty of the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9181 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th JULY, 2009. kvni