IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.4341 of 2008 Between: Regani Narsayamma … Petitioner AND The Station House officer, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. G. Jaya Reddy for Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao 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.4341 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not entertaining the petitioner’s complaint against respondent Nos.4 to 7 regarding the latter’s attempt to trespass into the petitioner’s land and forcibly dispossess her from the extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.51/4 of Singivalasa, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal. Heard Smt. G. Jaya Reddy representing Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the abovementioned property. She alleged that when respondent Nos.4 to 7 attempted to dispossess her, she filed O.S.No.221 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for declaration of her title and permanent injunction and that the said suit was decreed on 17.04.2007 with costs, that A.S. No.173 of 2007 filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the file of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, was dismissed on 31.12.2007 and that the said judgment has become final. The petitioner further alleged that on 25.01.2008 when she along with her husband went to the said land for attending to agricultural operations, respondent Nos.4 to 7 along with their men entered into the land, armed with crowbars and sticks, and threatened her and her husband and that due to intervention of neighbouring ryots, they went away by claming that they would come back again and take possession of the property. The petitioner alleged that she and her husband went to the police station at about 2.00 p.m. on the same day and that a written complaint was also given to respondent No.1, but he refused to receive the same stating that the dispute is civil in nature. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that since the petitioner has not given any complaint, the same was not received by respondent No.1 and hence no crime has been registered. No counter affidavit is however filed. Since there is a dispute regarding the claim of the petitioner that she gave a complaint to respondent No.1, this Court is of the view that interests of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh complaint and on such complaint being made, respondent No.1 shall receive the same and act in accordance with the provisions of Section 154 and other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5656 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.03.2008 ES