HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.33691 of 2010 Date: January 21, 2011 Between: Ponuganti Raj Gopal, S/o.Bheem Rao, Aged: 50 years, Occ:business, R/o.H.No.10-13, CCC Cross Roads, Mancherial, Adilabad District … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, and others … Respondents Order: Petitioner questions the action of respondents-Police, interfering with his possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.40/A and 40/AA, situated at Narsapur village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the aforesaid land, having purchased the same by registered sale deed dated 23-09-2005. When one Sri Anand Kumar Sharma and others were interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said land, he filed a suit in O.S.No.16/2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial for declaration of title and injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of the defendants in the said suit, respondents-Police are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Precisely, it is his grievance that as much as the dispute between him and third parties is of civil nature, respondents-Police have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere in the civil dispute by calling him to the Police Station and asking him to get the dispute settled. Heard Sri K.R. Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents-Police. Based on written instructions submitted by the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, CCC Naspur Police Station, Adilabad District, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that one Sri Ranga Srisailam lodged a complaint on 20-02-2010 stating that, on 18-02-2010, the petitioner and others trespassed into the land in Sy.No.40; basing on the same, a case was registered in Cr.No.23 of 2010 under Sections 447, 506 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also lodged a complaint on 20-02-2010 stating that on 19-02-2010, one Sri N. Guru Charan and others have stolen his sand and stones and requested to take action; accordingly a case in Cr.No.24 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Section 379 IPC. It is further submitted that the petitioner was never asked to get the matter settled, by coming to the Police Station and there is no interference in the civil disputes between the petitioner and third parties, as alleged by him. When complaints are lodged and based on the same, crimes are registered it is the duty of the Police to investigate into the matter and file an appropriate report before the Court concerned. In this case, it appears, two crimes, viz. Cr.No.23 of 2010 and Cr.No.24 of 2010 on the file of Naspur Police Station, Adilabad District, have been registered basing on two different complaints - one by Sri Ranga Srisailam and the other by the petitioner. When investigation is being done by respondents-Police pursuant to registration of crimes, it cannot be termed as interference in the civil dispute. In any event, as much it is stated that the petitioner is not being called to the police station and there is no interference on the part of the respondents-Police in the civil dispute between the petitioner and third parties, I dispose of the writ petition placing on record the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that respondents-Police are not calling the petitioner to the police station and asking him to settle the civil dispute with third parties. However, it is made clear that respondents-Police are not precluded from investigating into the crimes referred above and file appropriate final reports, if not already filed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) January 21, 2011 MRR