THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13668 of 2010 Dated 30th August, 2010 Between: Parupalli Dhanalakshmi and another. …Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None appeared for the petitioners Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri B.V.S.S. Balakrishna Ranjit The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is two-fold. (i) That respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not been taking action on the report lodged by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.5, and (ii) that though respondent No.5 is threatening the petitioners to cause harm to their life and grab the property (rice mill), the Police are not taking action. At the hearing, there is no presentation for the petitioners. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for representing respondent No.5. As regards the first grievance of the petitioners, prima facie, the report lodged by them does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Assuming such an offence is disclosed, the petitioners have alternative remedy of filing a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. if the Police do not register the criminal case. With regard to the second grievance referred to above, predominantly the dispute raised by the petitioners appear to be civil in nature. If respondent No.5 has been allegedly threatening the petitioners to dispossess for the last seven years, they should have approached the competent civil Court for grant of an appropriate relief to prevent respondent No.5 from dispossessing them. On the other hand, while the petitioners did not appear to have done so, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 has stated that his client has filed O.S.No.52 of 2010 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, and obtained an order of injunction against the petitioners. This fact would disclose that the petitioners are evidently seeking to overcome the order of injunction by involving the Police. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.17227 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th August, 2010 GHN