THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6138 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent – Inspector of Police, Kandukur Circle, Kandukur Town, Prakasam District, in insisting the petitioner to appear before him and not to undertake cultivation in the land admeasuring Acs.5.18 cents covered by Survey No.54/1A situated at Anneboinapalli Revenue Village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the fourth respondent without any authority of law is interfering with the civil disputes which exists between him and the unofficial respondents and is insisting him not to cultivate the aforesaid land. Based on written instructions, dated 14.03.2011, sent by the fifth respondent - Station House Officer, Gudluru Police Station, Gudluru Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 5 that the sixth respondent lodged a complaint before the police on 11.02.2011 alleging that the petitioner caught hold of her, misbehaved with her, abused in filthy language and beat her. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.13 of 2011 was registered under Sections 354 and 323 IPC on 11.02.2011 and the petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2011 and remanded to judicial custody. It is also submitted that investigation in the said crime was completed, charge sheet was filed before the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur, and PRC number is awaited. With regard to interference, it is stated that except registering the said crime, the fourth respondent did not interfere with the civil dispute with regard to aforesaid land and did not instruct the petitioner not to cultivate the land in question. When a complaint is lodged, it is the duty of the police to investigate into it. Such investigation being made into Crime No.13 of 2011, which was registered against the petitioner, cannot be termed as interference. In any event, as it is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 5 that the fourth respondent did not interfere with the disputes with regard to possession over the land in question and did not insist the petitioner not to cultivate the land, the writ petition is disposed of placing on record such statement. It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding as to who is in possession of the land in question in view of the rival claim made by the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th MARCH, 2011. kvni