THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.15755 of 2009 Date: 07-10-2009 Between: Sunkara Sarat Chowdhary … Petitioner And Station House Officer, Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.15755 of 2009 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the tenant of the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent is the father of the 4th respondent. During the year 2006, when the respondents 4 and 5 demanded to enhance the rent by 50% of the existing rent, the petitioner did not agree for the same. There from, taking help from the 6th respondent, who is the son of the then Director General of Police, they are trying to disposes the petitioner from the premises. In this regard, the petitioner filed a suit and obtained injunction in his favour. Even after the decree in his favour, the respondents forcibly trying to disposes him from the premises and threatening with dire consequences. Narrating the disputed circumstances between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, the petitioner lodged complaints before the Police, who did not take any action on them. Therefore, the petitioner filed a private complaint, which was numbered as C.C. No.1274 of 2009. It is also submitted that on 17.07.2009 the 5th respondent along with 20 gundas and some anti social elements trespassed into the petitioner’s premises at about 10 a.m., and beat his driver and locked him in his chamber and thereafter threatening with dire consequences obtained his signatures on several blank and stamp papers and forcibly taken away the valuable items worth about Rs.4,00,000/-. Informing the above said situation, on the same day, lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent, Station House Officer, Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station, and a case in Crime No.957 of 2009 was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent seeking protection to him and his property. The 1st respondent, instead of taking action against the unofficial respondents, except registering the crime, no action has been taken against the unofficial respondents and moreover cautioning him to vacate the premises stating that he is helpless since the 6th respondent is the son of erstwhile Director General of Police. While the things stood thus, on 29.07.2009 at about 7 p.m., the 1st respondent called the petitioner to the Police station stating that he needed some information. After going to the Police station he found there the 6th respondent and in his presence the 1st respondent told him that the 6th respondent is very much interested in this case to get him evicted and that it is better to vacate the premises and asked him to give a date in writing to vacate the premises, if not, threatened with dire consequences. Though he made several efforts to seek redressal for his grievance, went futile. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents counter has been filed, inter alia, stating that the petitioner lodged a complaint on 17.07.2009 against his owner and the same was registered in Crime No.957 of 2009. Further it is submitted that during the course of investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, wherein it was revealed that there is a civil dispute going on between the petitioner and his owner. Since, prima faice, case is not established to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, investigation is going on in all angles and necessary action will be taken against the accused, depending on the evidence adduced during the course of investigation. Further, it is assured that the investigation will be completed as expeditiously as possible and an appropriate report/charge sheet will be filed at the earliest by following due process of law. It is specifically denied that the petitioner was subjected to harassment by the official respondents. It is also submitted that neither they insisted the petitioner to vacate the premises in question nor asked him to compromise the matter with the unofficial respondents. It is further submitted that unless and until there is an order from the Court of law, it is not possible to give police protection to the disputed site. Eventually, it is submitted that the petitioner has made all the baled allegations against the official respondents for the purpose of the instant writ petition. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the official respondents registered the case against the unofficial respondents based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, no action has been taken against them but moreover the official respondents are acting at the instance of unofficial respondents. The learned Government Pleader submitted that during the course of investigation the petitioner was called to the police station but not harassed and never called him time and again. Admittedly, the petitioner is the tenant of the respondents 4 and 5 and when they demanded to increase the rent, the petitioner did not agree for the same. In this regard, a suit was filed and the petitioner got obtained decree in his favour. Even thereafter, unofficial respondents are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to evict him from the premises in question. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the Police. The Police instead of taking action against the unofficial respondents acting at the instance of unofficial respondents and the same was specifically denied by the official respondents stating that they never interfered with the civil dispute but the investigation is going on as against the complaint lodged by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the investigation will be completed as expeditiously as possible and report/charge sheet will be submitted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking note of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that the official respondents never interfered with the civil dispute and they only acted in the process of investigation into the crime that was registered based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the official respondents to proceed with the investigation, in accordance with law, in the cases that are pending before them, in respect of the complaints lodged by the petitioner, without subjecting any harassment to the petitioner under the guise of investigation into the crime and submit the report/charge sheet, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 07-10-2009 LSK