THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 25717 OF 2009 Dated 12th July, 2010 Between: Karri Veerraju and three others … Petitioners And K.Ranga Raju and four others … Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 1 and 2 are interfering with the civil disputes with respect to 263 square yards of land situated in Survey No.22 of Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam pending between them and respondents 4 and 5. It is the case of the petitioners that their grandfather late Karri Veeranna was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.22.44 cents situated in Survey No.22 (Old No.15) of Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. The said land had fallen to the shares of the petitioners in a partition. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondents 4 and 5 started making false claims over their land to an extent of 263 square yards and respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.558 of 2006 in the Court of V-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking permanent injunction, which ended in dismissal by judgment dated 13.10.2009. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 1 and 2, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, are unnecessarily calling them to the police station and interfering with the civil disputes between them and respondents 4 and 5. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.4, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that he is the owner of an extent of 263 square yards in Plot No.3 (sub-divided as Plot No.3-A) of Survey No.22, Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 12.04.1989; that the said land is covered by an approved layout and that he started construction over the said land after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation. While so, as the petitioners illegally interfered with the said construction, he filed O.S.No.558 of 2006 seeking permanent injunction, which ended in dismissal and that he filed an appeal against the said judgment, which is pending in the Court of I-Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. It is also stated that he also filed O.S.No.259 of 2009 in the Court of I-Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and that status quo was granted in the said suit; that when the petitioners attempted to trespass into his property, he lodged report dated 17.11.2009 with the police, which was registered as Crime No.653 of 2009 on the file of III-Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam and that investigation into the said crime is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the disputes pending between the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 are of civil nature and that in view of pendency of civil suits between them, the report lodged by respondent No.4 against the petitioners pertaining to a civil dispute could not have been entertained by the police. Admittedly, basing on the report of respondent No.4, a crime has been registered against the petitioners and that the same is pending investigation. Unless investigation is completed, it cannot be said that whether the allegations in the said report refer to a civil dispute or not. When a complaint of trespass is lodged, it is the bounden duty of the police to register the crime based on such a complaint and investigate into the same. Therefore, the act of the police in registering the crime against the petitioners based on the report of respondent No.4 that the petitioners trespassed into his land cannot be termed as interference with the civil disputes and harassment of the petitioners. As the matter is at the stage of investigation, before completion of the investigation, this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report lodged by respondent No.4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the police to complete the investigation independently and file an appropriate final report/charge sheet as early as possible. It is further directed that under the guise of investigation, the petitioners shall not be harassed and shall not be called to the police station on day-to-day basis. It is, however, made clear that if the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.4 is of civil nature, it is open to the police to take into consideration the same and file appropriate final report in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 12th July, 2010 vrn