THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.6365 of 2010 ORDER: It is the grievance of the petitioner that one Mohan Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the 3rd respondent Police Station, is interfering with the civil disputes between him and others as regards the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.111 situated at Balanagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is in his possession, and demanding him to vacate the said land and also detained him in the police station without there being any case registered against him and set him at liberty by obtaining Rs. 15,000/-, which was raised by him by mortgaging the mangala sutram of his daughter-in-law. This Court, having regard to the serious allegations made by the petitioner, thought it appropriate that the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, shall cause an enquiry into the conduct of said Mohan Reddy and submit a report to this Court. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent caused an enquiry and submitted a report stating that the petitioner is involved in a crime of theft of building material from the site of one Dayanand, which is registered as Crime No.91 of 2010 on the file of the 3rd respondent police station, and during the course of investigation in the said crime, the said Mohan Reddy, S.I. of Police, enquired the petitioner, who admitted that he has taken away little quantity of sand from the site of the complainant for domestic case and further stated that the complainant used to insist him to vacate the subject land. It is further stated that as the alleged theft took place in the year 2006 and the complainant lodged complaint after four years of theft, there was nothing to recover at the instance of the accused and therefore the petitioner was let off from the police station after obtaining an undertaking from his brother. It is stated that since civil disputes are pending, the crime registered against the petitioner will be finalized after obtaining legal opinion. As regards the allegations of the S.I. of police demanding and obtaining Rs. 15,000/- from the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner, anticipating that the police may arrest him in connection with the theft case, raised an amount of Rs.15,000/- by mortgaging a gold chain with the Pawn Brokers and handed over the said amount to the President and Secretary of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Welfare Association, so as to enable them to meet the advocate fee for obtaining bail for him, in case of his arrest by the police in the above case, and thus the allegations of the S.I. of police demanding and obtaining Rs.15,000/- are false. Petitioner also filed his objections to the said report of the 2nd respondent, formally denying the contents of the report. Thereafter, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, stating that as no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and other accused in the subject crime and as there was lack of evidence against them, after obtaining necessary permission, final report to that effect was filed before the concerned criminal Court. The allegations of the S.I. of Police obtaining money from the petitioner and demanding him to vacate the subject land are also denied. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. From the report of the 2nd respondent and the counter-affidavit of the respondents, it is clear that there was a theft case registered against the petitioner and others, but however, as no evidence was collected against the accused and no prima facie case was made out against them, final report to that effect was filed before the concerned Criminal Court. Though the petitioner claims that the S.I. of police obtained Rs. 15,000/- from him and then set him at liberty from illegal detention, the respondent police have categorically denied the same and it is their stand that the petitioner, anticipating his arrest in the said crime, raised Rs. 15,000/- by pledging his gold chain from the pawn brokers, so as to meet the advocate fee for obtaining bail for him in the event of his arrest. They have also specifically denied that the respondent police are interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and others as regards the subject land. In view of this specific denial of interference by the respondents, no further orders need be passed by this Court. At this stage, the leaned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to implead some private parties as party respondents in this writ petition. The petitioner cannot seek to strengthen his case by imleading private parties. At any rate, this Court in a writ petition cannot make a roving enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner. The petitioner can pursue his remedies by approaching the appropriate forum but not in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 2nd November, 2010 IBL