IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 20427 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Koona Krishna, S/o. Sri K.Narayana, R/o. 2-43, Qutbullapur village, Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Sri Maddela Narasimha Goud, S/o. Sri M.Chandraiah, R/o. 6-141, Sudershan Reddy, Nagar Colony, Chintal, Qutbullapur Mandal, & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gatchibowli, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Sri T.Mohan Reddy, S/o. Sri T.Papi Reddy, R/o. L.B.Nagar Village, Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda District, A.P., .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other apropriate WRIT or DIRECTION declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in interfering in civil dispute and harassing the petitioners and the members of the family to undergo severe mental and physical starin without there being any offence alleged against the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, Unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.M.VENKATESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20427 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in interfering in the civil dispute and harassing the petitioners and their family members without there being any crime registered against them, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners of land admeasuring 2500 sq.yards in S.No.44/B and 45 situated at Chintal, Qutubullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy district and they have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with fourth respondent on 15.4.2006 for alienation of the said land for a total consideration of Rs.82,50,000/- and they have also received Rs.15,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration. As per the terms of the MOU, the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid by fourth respondent within 45 days from the date of MOU. The fourth respondent failed to comply with the terms of MOU and whenever petitioners requested either to pay the balance sale consideration or to cancel the MOU, the fourth respondent threatened the petitioners with dire consequences if they failed to register the entire property in his name. The third respondent, on the instigation of fourth respondent is calling the petitioners to the Police Station and threatening and forcing them to execute an agreement for payment of Rs.20,00,000/- within a period of two months from the date of agreement. Petitioners have also brought the said harassment of third respondent to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, but there is no response The learned counsel for petitioners states that the MOU entered between the petitioners and fourth respondent has become null and void in view of non-compliance of the conditions by the fourth respondent, therefore petitioners have also issued legal notice for cancellation of the said MOU. He further states that the interference of third respondent in a civil dispute and harassing the petitioners without there being any crime registered against them is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that Crime No.499 of 2008 was registered against the petitioners under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jeedimetla and since it was found that the matter being purely civil in nature, a final report was filed before the Court in this regard. He further stated that the petitioners were never harassed by the Police at any point of time nor they were forced to execute the agreement. In view of the above, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 18.11.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20427 of 2008 18.11.2008