IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURT DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1653 of 2008 Between: Sri Suryadevera Ravi Babu … Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Kukatpally, Cyberabad Commissionarate, Ranga Reddy District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Tulasi Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1653 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with the said civil dispute, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.284 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal. In the view I am taking, I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent No.3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, the petitioner’s allegation that the police are interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 is denied. In paragraph 3, it is mentioned as under: “I respectfully submit that the allegation of the petitioner that the 1st respondent at the instance of their previous vendors is sending the police constables to their residence and threatening them to vacate the premises and asking them to hand over the possession to the 3rd respondent and her builder Kumara Raju is false and hence denied. The allegation of the petitioner that this respondent is supporting the 3rd respondent and her builder and also interfering in the civil matters is false and hence denied. The allegation of the petitioner that this respondent is acting on the instructions of the 3rd respondent and her builder and calling the petitioner to the police station without any reason and also threatening to vacate the plots is false and hence denied. The dispute between the petitioner as wellas the 3rd respondent is purely civil in nature and no way concerned with the police. The further allegation that this respondent abused the petitioner is totally false and the same is denied. I submit that the respondent never interfered with the civil disputes.” The above-reproduced statement of the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station is taken on record and the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to avail his remedy, if the police interfere in the abovementioned civil dispute in future. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.2050 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.04.2008 ES