IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24764 of 2007 Between: Abdul Raheem, S/o. Abdul Kareem, R/o. 10-3-3/8, Humayun Nagar, Opp: Mahdigate (Slum Area) Behind Floor Mill, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asif Nagar Hyderabad. s 3 The Inspector of Police, P.S. Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 K. Chandrasekhar, S/o. late Sailoo, r/o. 10-3-3/5, Humayaun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to implement decree, dated 09.10.2000 for perpetual injunction passed by XIV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.1288 of 1998. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 in respect of a mulgi was subject matter of O.S.No.1288 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Additional Rent Controller-cum-XIV Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree, dated 09.10.2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said decree, respondent No.4 started interfering with the petitioner’s business by abusing him in filthy language and preventing the customers from entering the shop by abusing them. The petitioner claimed that he filed a complaint against respondent No.4 on 04.09.2007 before respondent No.3, but he failed to take any action on the said complaint. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia averred that since the answering respondent has not registered the crime, the petitioner filed a private complaint, which was referred by the jurisdictional Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, he registered Crime No.479 of 2007 under Sections 290, 341, 387, 447 and 506 IPC on 10.12.2007 against respondent No.4 and his wife and investigation was taken up by Mr. Ravinder Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police. He further submitted that the Investigation Officer examined the complainant and recorded his detailed statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the investigation is pending for want of collection of some more evidence. He also submitted that necessary steps will be taken against the accused mentioned in the FIR basing on the evidence adduced during the course of investigation and that he will take all possible steps to complete the investigation and file appropriate report/charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Having regard to the above-mentioned averments in the counter- affidavit, I am of the view that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.32264 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th APRIL, 2008 kvni