HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1097 OF 2010 Date: 08th July 2010 Between: Thirumalasetty Seetha. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1097 OF 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the civil disputes and insisting her to vacate the premises, as illegal, and consequently, to issue directions to respondent No.2 not to interfere with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 is the owner of the house bearing No.MIG-263, situated at Road No.4, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad, where the petitioner is residing along with her family members. It is her case that when respondent No.3 tried to dispossess her from the said house, she approached the civil Court by filing a suit for injunction in O.S.No.524 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Miyapur and obtained status quo orders in I.A.No.866 of 2009. It is the grievance of the petitioner that while the things stood thus, the 2nd respondent-Inspector of Police is interfering with the civil dispute, and he called the petitioner and her husband to the Police Station on 10th January 2010, detained them in the Station and warned them to vacate the premises by 31st of January 2010. Further, it is stated that under coercion, the Police obtained the signature of the petitioner’s husband on a white paper. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent-Inspector of Police. In the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has denied the various allegations made by the petitioner and it is stated that the area of jurisdiction of erstwhile Kukatpally Police Station is bifurcated into two Stations i.e. Kukatpally Police Station and Kukatpally Housing Board Police Station, with effect from 15.05.2010 and the subject matter of the case is within the limits of Kukatpally Housing Board Police Station. It is stated that the 3rd respondent herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, against the petitioner herein and her husband, stating that the petitioner and her husband are staying in a portion of the premises in question as tenants, for more than 10 years and when they are requested to vacate the premises, they created nuisance and abused the complainant in filthy language and also threatened the complainant and his family members with dire consequences. Based on the same, a case in Crime No.36 of 2010 is registered for the offences under Sections 506, 323 and 427 of IPC and under Section 7 of Criminal Amendment Act, and investigation was taken up. The investigation conducted into the said crime revealed that there is a prima facie case against the accused (petitioner herein) and her husband. Therefore, they were arrested on 01.02.2010 and were remanded to judicial custody. It is further stated that when there was a request by the 3rd respondent, who is a senior citizen, for vacation of the premises belonging to him, the petitioner and her husband developed grudge against him and started abusing him in filthy language and causing inconvenience to him. While stating that the suit filed by the petitioner is pending, respondents have categorically denied obtaining of any signature of the petitioner’s husband on blank paper, as alleged by her. It is also stated that after completion of investigation into the complaint lodged by respondent No.3, the final report is also filed and the case is pending in C.C.No.211 of 2010 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. In the counter, the 2nd respondent has categorically denied about his involvement in the civil dispute. In paragraph 8 of the counter, respondents have reiterated their stand that they have never asked the petitioner and her husband to vacate the premises by 31st of January 2010, as alleged by them. In view of the private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent before the Court, the matter was referred to the Police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., for investigation. In that view of the matter, investigation was conducted by the 3rd respondent based on the reference made by the Court, by registering a crime against the petitioner and her husband. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is interference by the Police. So far as the allegation of the petitioner about obtaining of signature of her husband on white paper and also about the warning from the 2nd respondent to vacate the premises by 31st of January 2010 are concerned, respondents have categorically denied the same. Further, it is to be noticed that on the complaint made by respondent No.3, a crime was registered, investigated into and as a prima facie case was found against the petitioner and her husband, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the final report is also filed and the matter is now pending trial before the competent criminal Court. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is interference by the Police with the civil dispute. For the aforesaid reasons, no case is made out by the petitioner, for grant of directions as prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th July 2010 ajr