IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6154 of 2009 Between: A.Ramesh, S/o. A.Ramulu, R/o. H.No.2-2-1042/A/B, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. L.B.Nagar, R.R.District. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar Division, Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District. 4 The Circle Inspector of Police, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District. 5 Sri Saidulu, Sub-Inspector of Police, LB.Nagar P.S., Rangareddy District. 6 K.Ramreddy, S/o. Pitchireddy, R/o. Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 7 P.Janapareddy, S/o. Sri P.Narayanareddy, R/o. Plot No.793, Road.No.10 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in general and the respondents 4 and 5 in particular in interfereing in a civil matter and in Assisting the respondent 6 and 7 to trespass and cause damage to the property of the petitioner herein bering Municipal No.11-13-43/A (Plot No.23 and 25 A) Alkapuri, road No.1, Rangareddy District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; while issuing a cosequential directions to the respondents 1 to 5 not to interfere in civil matters pertaining to the house bearing Municipal No. 11-13-43/A (Plot No.23 and 25A) Alkapuri, road.No.1, ranga Reddy District in the interest of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioner states that he and others purchased plots bearing Nos. 23 and 25-A admeasuring 1000 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 9/1/F of Saroornagar village and Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed dated 31.5.2004, and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. That they also obtained permission from the Municipality and the property was also assessed and H. No.11-13-8/1/A was allotted. He states that when he sought to make constructions, respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who claimed to be Power of Attorneys of Smt. Dhana Lakshmi and K. Yagna Narayana Reddy, interfered with his possession, and thereupon, filed suits in O.S. Nos. 949 of 2004 and 873 of 2004, for permanent injunction, which were decreed on 09.03.2009. While so, it is the case of the petitioner, that based on the civil court decree, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 with the assistance of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 trespassed into his property and caused extensive damage to the land. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking directions to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 not to assist respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and interfere with the civil disputes between him and respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The 5th respondent, namely the Sub Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar Police Station, filed counter stating that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 6 and 7, they made an entry in the GD, and thereafter, registered a case in Crime No. 346/2009 under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. In the course of investigation, he visited the site, inspected the scene of offence and drafted panchanama in the presence of mediators, and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 showed the judgment and decree in the above suits and requested to implement them. Insofar as the complaint lodged by the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that they will take action after conducting preliminary enquiry, and he specifically denied the contention of the petitioner that he has interfered with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and that to implement the judgment and decree, after registration of the crime, he visited the scene of offence, for enquiry. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed detailed counter stating that Smt. P. Dhanalakshmi and Sri. K. Yagna Narayana Reddy, are the absolute owners of plot Nos. 7 and 8, each admeasuring 500 Sq. yds. in Sy. No. 10 of Saroor Nagar village and Gram Panchayat, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds from Vimalananda Co- operative Society. When the petitioner tried to interfere with their possession, they filed suits in O.S. Nos. 873 and 949 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner and others, seeking permanent injunction, which were decreed by judgment dated 09.03.2009. The plots purchased by the petitioner and others are different from the ones claimed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who are Power of Attorney of original orders, wherein the petitioner and others claimed that they purchased plot Nos. 23 and 25-A, while the plots claimed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, are plot Nos. 7 and 8. As the petitioner and others tried to interfere with their possession, they lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar Police Station, on 19.03.2009, which was registered as F.I.R. No. 346 of 2009. They denied the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 interfered with the civil disputes between him and them, and that they trespassed into the property and tried to dispossess the petitioner. It is contended that even though the petitioner and others filed appeals in A.S. Nos. 61 and 62 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, no suspension of the judgment and decree, which respondent Nos. 6 and 7 sought to implement, was granted. It is stated that the petitioner filed the present writ petition with a view to preventing the police from discharging their statutory duties of investigating into the complaint lodged against him by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 in the guise of registration of crime, based on the complaint lodged by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, is interfering in civil disputes between him and respondent Nos. 5 and 6. He submitted that even though the petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent Nos. 6 and 7, respondent No.5 did not take any action thereon. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home denied interference of the police in civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and submitted that based on the complaint lodged by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, they have registered a case, and for the purpose of investigation of the case, they visited the scene of offence, and such action of the police cannot be termed as interference by them in civil disputes. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are Power of Attorney holders of the original owners, who obtained permanent injunction. The plots purchased by the petitioner and others are different from the ones claimed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. As the petitioner and others tried to interfere with their possession, the original owners filed suits for permanent injunction and obtained decrees. After obtaining the decrees as the petitioner and others tried to interfere, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 lodged complaint, based on which, a crime was registered, which is under investigation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Though the petitioner claims that respondent No.5, at the instance of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, is interfering in civil disputes between him and respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the fact remains that the same is disputed by respondent No.5 as also respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It is the specific case of respondent No.5 that based on the complaint lodged by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that the petitioner and others are interfering with their possession, he registered a case in Crime No. 346 of 2009, and for the purpose of investigation of the case, he visited the scene of offence, and never interfered in civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Be that as it may, as can be seen from the averments made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavits, the petitioner and others are claiming plot Nos. 23 and 25-A, while respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who are Power of Attorney holders of the original owners, are claiming plot Nos. 7 and 8. Admittedly, the original owners, obtained decrees of permanent injunction in O.S. Nos. 873 and 949 of 2004 against the petitioner and others. If respondent Nos. 6 and 7 want implementation of the judgment and decree, their remedy is to get the said judgment and decree executed by filing an E.P. in the Court, which granted the decree. However, without taking recourse to the execution proceedings, they cannot take the assistance of the police to implement the judgment and decree. However, simply because the disputes are civil in nature, it does not mean that the police cannot interfere when there is breakdown of law and order, and there are complaints for taking action against the persons who indulge in criminal activities and breach the law and order at the site. Since the crime registered against the petitioner and others, based on the complaint of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is pending investigation, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is also said to have lodged a complaint against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and others, it is appropriate to direct respondent No.5 to investigate into the crime registered on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as also the complaint lodged by the petitioner, and take necessary action. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that respondent No.5 would not conduct the investigation independently. The petitioner cannot jump to such conclusions even before the investigation is completed. However, if, after investigation of the crime in question, registered based on the complaint lodged by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the petitioner feels that respondent No. 5 has not conducted the investigation properly, then he is at liberty to make a representation to respondent No.3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 30th April, 2009 bcj