Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.11996 of 2009 Dated 26th July, 2011 Between: Shaik Ahmed Pasha …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Office at Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad and five others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mirza Safiulla Baigh Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: Asst.GP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 to 5 in interfering with civil disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.6 on the other in respect of property bearing No.8-3-167/B/4, Plot No.19-A situated at Jayanthi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Mirza Safiulla Baigh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 4. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the above mentioned property running business of Tours and Travels under the name and style of “A1-Saas”. It is averred that respondent No.6 obtained an allegedly fraudulent and collusive decree in O.S.No.4387 of 2004 on 21.09.2004 in the Court of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and filed E.P.No.87 of 2007 for taking possession of the property in occupation of the petitioner; that the petitioner filed claim petition in E.A.No.521 of 2008 in E.P.No.87 of 2007 and obtained stay of execution of the decree and that the said claim petition is pending. The petitioner alleged that in collusion with respondent No.6, respondent No.5 came to the disputed property and helped respondent No.6 in attempting to dispossess him; that he lodged a complaint with respondent No.4 on 14.06.2009 and that respondent No.3 called him to his office on 15.06.2004 and directed him to settle the disputes threatening that if he does not do so he will be implicated in criminal cases. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad, it is inter alia averred that respondent No.6 approached Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station on 14.06.2009 at 18.30 hours and lodged a complaint stating that at 3.45 pm., he was attacked by the persons by name Chawni Ahmed, Raheem, Dastagir, Baba, Nizamauddin and their henchmen attempting to commit murder on him. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.817 of 2009 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 427 read with 34 IPC on 14.06.2009, in which the petitioner was shown as accused No.1. It is further stated that while the investigation into the said crime was going on, the petitioner sent a petition to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station on 14.06.2009 at 7 pm., against respondent No.6 and others including respondent No.5 alleging that they were attempting to interfere with his possession of the property in question and that the said report was registered as Crime No.822 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC against respondent No.6 and others. Respondent No.6 filed counter denying that respondent No.3 called the petitioner to his office on 15.06.2009 and directed him to settle the civil disputes by threatening that if he fails to do so he will be implicated in false criminal cases. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that while investigation into Crime No.817 of 2009 is pending, investigation into Crime No.822 of 2009 was completed and a final report, dated 30.11.2010 was filed referring the complaint as civil in nature. She further stated that the Police have not been interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 and that the investigation into Crime No.817 of 2009 will be completed as soon as possible and an appropriate report will be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Having regard to the above submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 and with the further direction that the investigation into Crime No.817 of 2009 be completed and an appropriate report be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.15461 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 26th July, 2011