IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13684 of 2006 Between: D. Mohandas … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13684 of 2006 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not taking further steps to investigate the case in Crime No.121 of 2006 registered on 03.05.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In the counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Asif Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, it is mentioned that there are serious disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 over the house property bearing No.12-1-922/1/A, that the petitioner purchased the said house property from respondent No.4’s parents on 13.08.1975 and that when respondent No.4 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, the petitioner’s parents filed O.S.No.880 of 1981 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was decreed on 18.02.1982, that respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.4196 of 1980 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction claiming the said property under municipal door No.12-1-922/2/D and the said suit was dismissed on 28.08.1986. The petitioner further alleged in his complaint that when respondent No.4 sought to trespass into the property, criminal case No.710 of 1987 was registered, that the petitioner’s mother filed O.S.No.31 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and possession in respect of property bearing No.12-1-922/1/A against respondent No.4 and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 24.10.2005 and in the execution petition filed by the petitioner warrant was issued by the learned XXI Additional Chief Judge- cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge directing the bailiff to put the decree holders in possession on 15.02.2006, but respondent No.4 took the lock and key of the property preventing the bailiff from executing the decree. It is further alleged that respondent No.4 and others pre-occupied the property, obstructed and prevented the petitioner from entering into the same and on 05.04.2006 they attacked the petitioner, beat him with sticks, legs and hands. The petitioner filed a private complaint, which was referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police and the Sub- Inspector of Police registered Crime No.114 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 109, 325, 268, 351, 481, 331 and 504 read with Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and investigation was taken up. In the counter affidavit, it is also mentioned that a similar complaint was given to the police by the petitioner on 03.05.2006 alleging that on 02.05.2006 respondent No.4 and his daughters and sons forcibly trespassed into the property and the said complaint was registered as Crime No.121 of 2006 under Section 448 IPC. It is also mentioned that the investigation is under progress and necessary steps are being taken to complete the same. Having considered the pleadings in the case and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that this writ petition constitutes sheer abuse of process of Court. From the narration of the facts given above, there are serious disputes regarding the immovable property between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Though the offences alleged to have been committed are in connection with the civil disputes, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have taken effective steps not only by registering the crimes, but also by commencing investigation. While crime No.114 of 2006 was registered on 24.04.2006, on expiry of two months, the present writ petition is filed complaining that investigation is not yet completed. This evidently shows that the petitioner seeks to bring pressure on the police to persecute respondent No.4. This Court cannot appreciate such a conduct on the part of the petitioner in filing the present writ petition, which is evidently intended to pressurize the police machinery. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.17032 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.04.2008 ES