THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 20507 of 2010 Oral order: By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to declare the action of respondent No.3, namely the Inspector of Police, Marredpally Police Station, Secunderabad, in not taking action on his complaints dated 05.08.2010 and 13.08.2010 and not granting police protection to him, as illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith take action on his complaints and provide police protection. The petitioner states that he has field a civil suit in O.S. No. 1664 of 2002 on the file of XVIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against respondent Nos.4 to 7, for injunction, and the same by judgment dated 04.02.2006 was decreed in his favour. The appeal in A.S. No. 47 of 2006 filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 on the file of XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, was dismissed by judgment dated 30.09.2008, and the second appeal in S.A. No. 604 of 2009, preferred against the same, was also dismissed by judgment dated 28.04.2010. The said judgment, according to the petitioner, attained finality. According to the petitioner, there is threat to his life from respondent Nos. 4 to 7, and therefore, he lodged complaints dated 05.08.2010 and 13.08.2010 requesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide police protection. As no action thereon was taken, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court, by order dated 18.08.2010, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take necessary action on the complaints and provide police protection to the petitioner. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit stating that as the contents of the complaint dated 05.08.2010 that the dispute raised by him is civil in nature and did not make out any cognizable offence, he has not initiated any action. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another complaint on 13.08.2010 stating that some persons by names Goli Syam Sunder, Goli Shravan Kumar, Goli Nanda Kishore and Goli Shiva Kumar, are interfering with the possession of his and trying to possess him and requested him to provide police protection. It is further stated in the counter that Goli Shyam Sunder, filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, and the same having been referred to him by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, he registered the same as Crime No. 84 of 2010 against the petitioner under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 506 I.P.C. That as per the interim directions granted by this Court, they have provided police protection to the petitioner. Though the petitioner alleged that there is threat to his life from respondent Nos. 4 to 7, he has filed the present writ petition without impleading them as party-respondents. However, the persons from whom the petitioner apprehends threat to his life, got themselves impleaded as party-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, and they also filed vacate stay petition, praying to vacate the interim order passed by the Court, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide police protection. In the vacate stay petition, which is accompanied by counter affidavit, it is stated by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 that after dismissal of the second appeal in S.A. No. 604 of 2009, they have questioned the judgment dated 28.04.2010 passed therein by this Court by preferring S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is pending. While the S.L.P. filed by them is pending, the petitioner filed the present writ petition without implelading them as party-respondents and obtained interim order directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide police protection for implementation of the judgment in second appeal. They state that the petitioner cannot take assistance of respondent Nos. 1 to 3-police for implementation of the order of the Court, and their remedy, is to file execution petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7. As can be seen from material placed before the Court, and the very admission of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 7, there is a civil dispute between them, and the matter is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. This apart, based on the private complaint lodged by one Goli Shyam Sunder, respondent No.4 herein, a crime in Crime No. 84 of 2010 is registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 506 I.P.C., and the same is under investigation. Though the petitioner lodged complaint dated 05.08.2010, it is the case of respondent No.3 that the complaint is civil in nature, and therefore, he did not act on it, and advised the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court. According to the petitioner, he has a decree passed by the Courts in his favour, and when such is his case, his remedy is to file execution petition, but he certainly cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and seek directions to the police to provide him protection for implementation of the decree. Such a course is impermissible in law. The role of the police would come into play, only if there is break down of any law and order. However, in the absence of any law and order problem, no direction can be given to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide police protection, much less to provide police protection for executing the decree. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is said to have made another complaint dated 13.08.2010 for providing protection to him and having regard to the fact that already based on the private complaint lodged by respondent No.4, a crime is registered against the petitioner, respondent No.3 is directed to investigate both of them and take appropriate action. Accordingly, with the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 9th November, 2010 KSR