IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3377 of 2008 Between: Sambaram Shankar S/o.Narsimha R/o.Moinabad village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Sri Venkata Subba Rao, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Sri Rambhoopal Narsingi Circle, Narsingi Village, Ranga REddy District. 4 Nancheri Prabhakar Goud S/o.Narsimha Goud R/o. Peddamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Nancheri Mahanandam Goud S/o.Narsimha Goud R/o. Peddamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.LAXMAN Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 5: MR PALLE NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, in respect of three mulgies forming part of House No.5-86, Moinabad village and Grampanchayat, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and without authority of law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In the affidavit, the petitioner stated that he took three mulgies on monthly lease from its owner M.Sudhakar Rao and is running Kirana & General Stores in the name and style of “Manisha Kirana & General Stores” in the said premises, that respondents 4 and 5, who claim to be the purchasers of the three mulgies, filed O.S.No.300 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, for perpetual injunction and they also sought for an ad-interim injunction against the petitioner and that the said application was rejected by the said Court and the suit is pending. The petitioner alleged that having failed in their attempts to dispossess him through the Court, respondents 4 and 5 influenced respondents 2 and 3 and on 12-02- 2008, the second respondent came to the petitioner’s mulgies and took him into illegal custody for four hours and threatened to implicate him in a false case if he does not vacate the premises within a week. It is further alleged that respondents 2 and 3 came to his mulgies on 14-02-2008 and forcibly obtained a written undertaking from him that he will vacate the premises within 20 days. This action of respondents 2 and 3 is assailed in this writ petition. In the manner in which the writ petition is being disposed of, there is no need to issue notice to respondents 4 and 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, all the above mentioned allegations made by the petitioner are denied. It is stated that respondents 2 and 3 have never interfered with the civil disputes between the petitioner on one side and respondents 4 and 5 on the other. The second respondent also averred that since the disputes between them are civil in nature, the police have nothing to do with the same and that he never summoned the petitioner to the police station and neither he nor the third respondent required the petitioner to vacate the mulgies in question and obtained any written undertaking. In view of this categorical denial by the second respondent of the allegations made by the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. In the event of respondents 2 and 3 interfering with the above mentioned civil dispute, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint against respondents 2 and 3. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt:11-03-2008 usd