THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NOs.11866 and 11869 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: Both these Writ Petitions are connected and, as such, are now being disposed of by a common order. The grievance of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is regarding the action of the respondent authorities in interfering with their possession of lands though the dispute is civil in nature; in taking the petitioners forcibly to the police station; and their being detained in the police station. The petitioners would allege that the police officials are hand-in-glove with respondents 7 and 8; and a partition suit has already been filed by the petitioners against the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that a complaint was received from respondents 7 and 8 and their father Sri D.Seetha Ram Reddy; their complaint was registered as Cr.No.4 of 2011 for offences under Section 447, 427 and 506(2) I.P.C; after completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial First Class of Magistrate, Narsapur vide C.C.No.26 of 2011, and the matter is pending trial; similarly, on a complaint being received, Crime No.22 of 2011 was registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 427, 506(2) and 447 I.P.C; and, on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur vide C.C.No.89 of 2011. The respondents would deny the petitioners’ allegations of their being taken away forcibly to the police station or to have detained them in the police station. It is stated that the petitioners were called to the police station only in connection with the investigation. In the light of the assertions in the counter affidavit; as a complaint was registered against the petitioners; the matter investigated; and, thereafter, a charge sheet was filed against them, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. Suffice to place on record the statement of the respondents – police officials that they are not interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents 7 and 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________ 2-11- 2011 asp