IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 3007 of 2001 BETWEEN: M/s. Kameswari Co-operative, Housing Society, Rep. by its President, Sri P. Subba Rao, S/o. Narayana Rao, R/o. 6.1.1065, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General Police, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 6 The Station House Officer, Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District. 7 Chintala Pochaiah, S/o. Late Chittari, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Chintala Bhushanam, S/o. Late Chittari, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 9 Chintala Mallesha, S/o. Late Chittari, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 10 Chintala Yadaiah, S/o. Late Chittari, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 11 Chintala Krishna, S/o. Late Chittari, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 12 Chintala Bholakshmamma, S/o. Late Chittari, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 13 Chintala Balaiah, S/o. Late Komaraiah, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 14 Chintala Sivaiah, S/o. Late Komaraiah, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 15 Chintala Sri Ramulu, S/o. Late Komaraiah, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 16 Chintala Mallamma, S/o. Late Komaraiah, R/o. Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ of Mandamus declaring that the actions of the 6th respondent Station House Officer and its Constables Ramchander P.C.No.2184 and Madhusudhan P.C.No.2533 in resorting to manhadling physically, illegal, treatment and also resorting to physical blows on the petitioners including snatching the petitioner cell as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, high handed and bad and further direct the respondents to pay the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner for the ill treatment and in subject the petitioner's to the defamation in the neighbourhood and society without any lawful causes and without due process of law and consequently direct that they shall not resort to such illegal acts in future in interfering and settling the property disputes with clandestine understanding with the 3rd party land grabbers for illegal gratifications and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C. HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner – society seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 6th respondent Station House Officer and its Constables Ramchander P.C.No.2184 and Madhusudhan P.C.No.2533 in resorting to manhandling its president physically, meting out illegal treatment and also resorting to physical blows on him including snatching his petitioner cell phone as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, high handed and bad and to direct the respondents to pay the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to him for the ill treatment and in subjecting him to defamation in the neighbourhood and society without any lawful causes and without due process of law. 2. All the averments made in the writ affidavit have been denied in the counter stating that there is no basis for such averments and that they are false and incorrect. There is no truth in any of the allegations. It is stated that on 13.02.2001 one Prof. K. Ravindranath, R/o. Plot No.111, O.U. Teachers’ Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad submitted a complaint stating that the O.U. Teachers’ Welfare Society, Kondapur owns the land in Sy.No.78 to 93 of Kondapur village but the petitioner-society and its President and others trespassed into their society plots threatening with dire consequences and on the basis on the said complaint a case registered in Cr.No.17 of 2001 for the offence under Section 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 13.02.2001 and took up investigation. In that connection, the sixth respondent has sent constables on 19.02.2001 to the house of the president of petitioner-society asking him to come to police station in order to enquire into the matter. The petitioner informed that he will come to the police station later along with his counsel but he did not turn up to the police station. It is stated that the petitioner instead of cooperating with the investigating agency, filed this writ petition with all false allegations and that the police did not manhandle him and they have not snatched away the cell phone and the allegations made by him are far from truth. 3. I am of the opinion that the said disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition, therefore, the question of issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay damages, does not arise. Once a criminal case is registered it is the duty of the police to investigate the matter and take appropriate action but if the police exceeds their jurisdiction it is always open to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law. However, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 18, 2008 DSK