IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.17737 of 2006 Between: Sri G.Radha Krishna Murthy and another. … Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District and six others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.S.Bhatt. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 and R.2. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri for R.3 to R.7. This Court made the following: ORDER:- Feeling aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the Police (respondents 1 and 2 herein) in connection with complaints dated 4-1-2006 and 31-3-2006 given by the petitioners against respondents 3 to 7, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. In response to the notices issued by this Court, respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, mentioned that complaint dated 4-1-2006 given by the petitioners to respondent No.1, alleging that respondents 3 to 7 are trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the lands, was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, T.Sundupalli; and that the latter conducted an enquiry and obtained an undertaking from respondents 3 to 7 to the effect that they will not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioners. It is further averred that respondent No.4 gave a complaint on 20-3-2006 to respondent No.1 stating that the petitioners and others have beaten him. The said complaint was also forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, T.Sundupalli; that on instructions of respondent No.1, the Sub- Inspector registered Crime No.16 of 2006 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, read with Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 21-3- 2006; and that the petitioners thereupon filed a petition before respondent No.1 stating that the said complaint was false. After investigation, it was found that the complaint given by respondent No.4 was false and accordingly final report has been submitted. From the contents of the counter-affidavit, it is clearly evident that while the Sub-Inspector of Police has not taken proper action on the complaint filed by the petitioners on 4-1- 2006; the complaint filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.1, which was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, T.Sundupalli, was registered as a criminal case. No explanation is forthcoming from the Police as to why no criminal case was registered against respondents 3 to 7 on the complaint given by the petitioners on 4-1-2006. Be that as it may, the facts of the case clearly reveal that the petitioners and respondents 3 to 7 are having serious dispute over agricultural land of Ac.10.00 cents. Neither of the parties are entitled to take the law into their own hands in the process of resolving the civil dispute. As and when any person has acted in the manner which constitutes an offence, the Police are duty bound to take appropriate action to register a case. While the conduct of the Police in displaying indifferent attitude towards the complaint of the petitioners cannot be appreciated, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to ensure that in future if any of the parties commit any act, which constitutes an offence, they are bound to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. --------------------------------- --- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:05-6-2009 MNR