THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7279 of 2010 Dated 31st March 2010 Between: Yalagala Papa Rao …Petitioner And: 1. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt D.S.Lakshmi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in registering complaint against respondent No.3 and in providing protection to the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.5-72 cs of Thangeda Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt D.S.Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are brothers. The petitioner pleaded that he is the owner of Ac.5-72 cs of land in the above mentioned Village; that when respondent No.3 tried to dispossess the petitioner, his attempts were foiled by the petitioner; that respondent No.3 filed O.S.No.497 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurajala for permanent injunction and that the said suit was dismissed on 20.04.2009. The petitioner further alleged that he raised Mirchi crop on the said land; that when there was a threat from respondent No.3 over the harvesting of the crop, the petitioner gave complaint, dated 10.07.2009, against respondent No.3 and others to respondent No.2 with a request to provide protection for harvesting the crop and that as no such protection was given, respondent No.3 has highhandedly taken away the crop. It is further stated that subsequently, the petitioner made several representations to provide protection for the future crops and that no action has been taken thereon. The petitioner also pleaded that he filed a private complaint in Gurajala Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the pleadings, I am of the view that the petitioner has invoked a wrong remedy. If the acts complained of against respondent No.3 constitute an offence, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the remedies under Section 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) and if the said remedy does not yield result, he has a right to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code. According to the petitioner, such a private complaint has already been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner is entitled to pursue the said remedy. As regards the petitioner’s request for police protection, I am afraid the Police cannot be asked to interfere in civil disputes. The petitioner is entitled to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction to prevent respondent No.3 from interfering with his possession of the property over which he is claiming the right of ownership. Unless the petitioner obtains an injunction order or a decree, he cannot ask for the police aid to protect his property. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9399 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 31st March 2010 dr