HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 16466 of 2010 Date: 08-10-2010 Between: Madu Appala Raju ……….. Petitioner and The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam and two others. ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 16466 of 2010 ORDER: The complaint of the petitioner is that the second respondent, at the instance of the third respondent, is interfering with the civil disputes between himself and the third respondent with regard to an extent of 0- 77 cents in Sy.No.27/4 situated at Yanadada village, Visakhapatnam, which is the subject matter of Appeal Suit No.52 of 2010 (O.S.No.659/2005) before the II Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam. 2. There is no necessity of going into all the details. 3. The second respondent filed a detailed counter stating that the third respondent filed a complaint before the P.M.Palem Police Station on 01-06-2010 at about 12-35 hours against the petitioner and his family members stating that they were threatening him with dire consequences and illegally trespassed into the scheduled lands mentioned in the complaint and requested the police to take necessary action as per law. Basing on the contents of the complaint, a case in Crime No.222 of 2010, under Sections 447 and 506 of IPC, was registered on the file of the P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, and investigation was taken up. While the investigation was under progress, the petitioner had approached the second respondent on 01-06-2010 at about 13-00 hours and lodged a complaint against the third respondent and basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.223 of 2010, under Sections 447 and 448 of IPC, was registered on the same day and investigation was taken up. Both the cases are pending at the stage of collecting evidence and as soon as the investigation is completed, proper action will be taken. The allegation that the second respondent is interfering into the civil disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent is false and incorrect. At no point of time, the second respondent harassed the petitioner or asked him to settle the dispute with the third respondent. 4. In view of the above circumstances, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication. However, the second respondent is directed to expedite the investigation taken up in the said two cases and file appropriate final report before the competent criminal Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 08-10-2010 YCR