IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.3217 of 2008 Between: K. Satyanarayana S/o. Late Tata, R/o. 58-20-31, APSEB Colony Buchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Ramachandra Raju S/o. P. Raju R/o. Gouthaminagar, Near Naidu Thota, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 2 Appal Naidu, S.H.O. Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 3 Prem Babu Asst. Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam,. 4 Berla Prasad Former Circle Inspector, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam. 6 The Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Sunil Kumar. Counsel for the Respondents : A.G.P. for Home for R.2 to R.6. The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 to 4 (mistakenly typed as respondents 1 to 4 in the prayer) in harassing the petitioner and trying to implicate him in police case, as illegal and contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 6. Heard Sri K.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. A perusal of the averments shows that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 in respect of Ac.0.56 cents of land comprised in Survey No.77 of Vepagunta village and Panchayat, Gopalapatnam SRO, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner filed O.S.No.136 of 2005 and I.A.No.443 of 2005 therein in the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, against respondent No.1 and while the application for injunction is pending, respondent No.1 again interfered with the petitioner’s possession, trespassed into his property and threatened to kill him. The petitioner, since then, had been making complaints against respondent No.1 and the suit filed by him was decreed. The petitioner claimed that at the instance of respondent No.1 a false criminal case was registered against him, vide: Cr.No.124 of 2007 dated 26-3-2007 of Pendurthi Police Station, and the petitioner gave a complaint to the Inspector General of Police (respondent No.6 herein) against respondent 2 on 18-4-2007, wherein it was complained that respondents 1 and 2 colluded together and have been harassing him. But, respondent No.6 has not taken any action. The facts pleaded by the petitioner show that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and in respect of the same dispute a crime was also registered. The jurisdictional Police have power and authority to investigate into the said crime and in that connection they are entitled to summon the petitioner as and when his presence is required. However, in the guise of investigation, respondents 2 to 4 cannot harass the petitioner. As regards the complaint filed by the petitioner, if the Police have not taken any action to register a crime, he is free to avail his remedies available under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 03-3-2008 MNR