THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.16043 OF 2009 Date: 07.10.2009 Between:- Mr.K.Jitendra @ Giri and others .. Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the Circle Inspector of Police, Renugunta Circle, Chittoor District and the Station House Officer, Yerpedu Police Station, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District by summoning the petitioners without there being any crime against them as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and to direct the respondents not to interfere with their day to day activities and not to summon them to the police station. 2. The case of the petitioners is that one Mr.Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai used to cultivate agricultural lands near their village. There was a civil dispute between the Government and Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai and O.S.No.52 of 1980 was filed by the Government in respect of the said land, which was dismissed by Judgment and decree dated 27.08.1994 aggrieved by which, the Government filed A.S.No.507 of 1995 and the same is pending on the file of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners along with several residents of their village have occupied small extents of land, developed the same and have been in possession and enjoyment for the last several years. In the year 1992, the said Mr.Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai died issueless and in the year 2004, his wife – Vaidehi also died. The brother’s daughters of Mr.Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai claimed that they were the legal heirs of late Mr.Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai and they succeeded to late Mr.Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai’s properties and they have given General Power of Attorney to one R.Ravichandran, who is the resident of Cuddalore, Tamilnadu. While so, one P.Shyam Prasad, the fourth respondent herein, had approached the villagers in the month of March, 2009 and proclaimed that he was the Managing Director of Kothacheruvu Plantation Industries Private Limited (KPIPL) and that late Mr.Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai sold the said property in favour of his company by way of an agreement of sale. As such, he claimed title over the property and sought for support to oppose the claim of legal heirs of late Mr.Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai but the villagers including the petitioners refused the contention of said P.Shyam Prasad. On 20.07.2009, some police officials came to their village and took them to the police Station, Yerpedu where respondent No.4 was present. In his presence, respondent Nos.2 and 3 abused them in filthy language, threatened them to support respondent No.4 or else to face serious consequences and also beat them. Therefore, their case is that they are all agriculturists and they cannot be involved in civil disputes between respondent No.4 and the legal representatives of Mr.Muthu Kumaraswamy Pillai and they were frequently being summoned to the police station and threatened. Hence, this writ petition. 3. On behalf of the official respondents-Police, the learned Government Pleader for Home, based on the written instructions, submitted that a complaint was lodged by one P.Shyam Prasad- respondent No.4, who is the Managing Director, Kothacheruvu Plantation and Industries Private Limited, Chennai, which is registered as Crime No.57 of 2009 on 28.06.2009 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 447, 323, 506 read with 34 I.P.C against one Mr.R.Ravichandran, S/o.C.Rajulu. The gist of the complaint is that the persons named in the complaint including the petitioners criminally trespassed into the land of respondent No.4 and assaulted the staff of the complainant and with a common intention, created forged documents of the land; that the investigation is going on and necessary action will be taken against the accused in the said crime depending upon the evidence adduced during the course of investigation. He also submitted that only with a view to divert the attention of the investigating agency, they filed the writ petition. He also denied the allegation of the petitioners that the official respondents beat the petitioners and threatened all of them by stating that if they do not support respondent No.4, they would be booked in a criminal case and see their end. It is submitted that except registering the crime basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.4, the official respondents did not summon them to the police station. The allegation of abusing them is also denied. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the official respondents are calling the petitioners time and again to the police station and abusing them in filthy language and also threatening them. 5. The case of the official respondents is that except investigating the case, the right of the petitioners is not interfered. The petitioners were not called to the police station and threatened as alleged and that a crime is registered against the accused. 6. In any crime, the police have power to investigate into the matter but under that guise, they have no power to deal with either the accused or others unconnected with the crime in any illegal manner. In the instant case, the case of the petitioners is that they are being called by the police to the police station at the instance of respondent No.4 and in his presence, the police have abused and threatened them but the same was denied by the police. There is no record to show that there is any basis to the allegations made by the petitioners against the police. 7. Therefore, having regard to the denial of the allegations made by the petitioner on the respondents, no positive direction can be given in this matter but the police can deal with the accused in the said crime and others in accordance with law only but not in contravention of law. Preserving the same and keeping it open to the police to investigate Crime No.57 of 2009 only in accordance with law, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 07th October, 2009 AMD