IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24657 of 2009 Between: S.Adinarayana Reddy ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Circle Inspector of Police, I Town Police, Srikakulam Town & District and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Surapu Naidu Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Home Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4: --- The Court made the following: Order: Feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in, allegedly, trying to dispossess the petitioner, at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, from his premises bearing Nos.12-5-13, 12-5-13(B) / 12-5-12 (A), he filed the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus to restrain the said respondents from interfering with his possession thereof. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to await service of notices on respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner pleaded that there is a civil dispute between him on the one side and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other. Against an order of injunction granted by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in IA.No.412 of 2009 in OS.No.284 of 2009, the petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which is pending. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out certain findings of the said Court which appear to be contradictory regarding the possession of the property in question. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner is that on the complaint given by respondent Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.2 registered Crime No.106 of 2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 379, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and in the guise of the said case, respondent Nos.1 and 2- Police Officials are trying to dispossess him from the property in question. In so far as the abovesaid Criminal Case is concerned, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to follow the due procedure of law. However, they shall not try to dispossess the petitioner, if he is in possession of the property in question, in order to aid respondent Nos.3 and 4, and it is for respondent Nos.3 and 4 to recover the possession thereof, by approaching the appropriate Court of law. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 13-11-2009, as extended by order, dated 29-12-2009, is vacated and WPMP.No.32065 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 9th March, 2010 lur