IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8295 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Karri Atchi Babu S/o Late Veeranna, R/0 Old Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam 2 Sri Karri Appa Rao S/o Late Veeranna R/0 Old Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam 3 Karri Mali Naidu S/o late Veeranna R/0 Old Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam 4 Sri karri Veeraju S/o Adinarayana R/o Old Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam (Petitioners 1 to 3 are rep by their General Power of Attorney Holder Sri Karri Veeraju, 4th Petitioenr herein) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Director General of Police, Office of DGP., Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, II town LAw & Order PS, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Sub- Inspector of Police, III town LAw & Order PS, Visakhapatnam. 5 Sri Gottumukkula Sanyasi Raju @ Yerri babu, S/o Late Sri. G. Ramachandra Raju MIG 83/2, Sector, II, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam. 6 Sri Gottukukkula Gopala Raju S/o Butchi Raju Kumar Apartments, Old Venkoji Palem, Visakhapatnam. 7 Sri Gottumukkala Madhu Babu s/o Jagannadha Raju 55-1-24 Pata Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. 8 Sri Gottumukkala jagannadha Rajus/o Jagannadha Raju 55-1-24 Pata Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. 9 Sri Gottumukkala Bangarraju S/o Jagannadha Raju 55-1-24 Pata Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. 10 Mr. U.v. Ramana Murthy Raju @ Kanna babu MLA., Near Alluri Seetharamaraju Statue, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.KOKA SRINIVAS KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 10: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in harassing the petitioners and interfering in civil disputes between the petitioners on one side and respondent Nos.5 to 9 on the other, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Koka Srinivasa Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In their affidavit, the petitioners gave a long narration of the various civil disputes that are pending between them and respondent Nos.5 to 9, and for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to make a specific reference to those facts in detail. It will suffice to note that in respect of the property in dispute, the petitioners claimed to have filed O.S.No.293 of 2008 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. It is claimed that respondent Nos.5 to 9 are defendants to the said suit. The petitioners alleged that despite pendency of the civil suit, respondent Nos.5 to 9 came to the said site along with respondent Nos.3, 4 and 10, and that respondent No.10, who is the local MLA, demanded the petitioners to vacate the property in question forthwith. The petitioners further alleged that at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 10, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been forcing them to hand over physical possession of the said property to respondent Nos.5 to 9. This Court, on earlier occasions, took serious note of the police interference in civil disputes. While I do not intend to repeat the observations made by this Court on earlier occasions, the need for respondent Nos.3 and 4 to stay away from the civil disputes is required to be reiterated. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall do well to realize that it is no part of their duty to interfere in civil disputes, unless a proper complaint alleging commission of a cognizable offence is filed by a citizen. Unless a crime is registered, the police cannot meddle with the disputes between private parties over the private properties. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere in civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9, unless any complaint is filed against the petitioners, which discloses the commission of cognizable offences. In such an event, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not precluded from acting in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by registering a case and investigating into the same. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.10971 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 17th April, 2008 lur