THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4923 of 2010 Date:19.04.2010 Between: Patchigolla Chinaramaswamy. ..... Petitioner AND 1. State of A.P. and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in interfering in civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to take appropriate action against respondent No.3. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In his affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that he is a permanent resident of Amalapuram, East Godavari District, and working as a private auditor; that respondent No.4 is a resident of Pallamkurru Village, Katrenikona Mandal; that respondent No.4 purchased an extent of 242 sq. yards in R.S.No.12/11 of Edarpalli Village, Amalapuram Mandal, from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.60,500/- under registered sale deed dated 27.12.2006 and that after due execution of the said deed, the petitioner delivered possession of the said property to respondent No.4. The petitioner further pleaded that while respondent No.4 had a dispute with one Nelapudi Prabhakararao with regard to the latter’s removing certain coconut trees from the above mentioned land purchased by respondent No.4, the said respondent in stead of proceeding against the said Prabhakarrao, prevailed upon respondent No.3 and highhandedly got the petitioner summoned by respondent No.3 to the Police Station and was asked to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent No.4 threatening that if he fails to pay the said amount, he will be implicated in a false criminal case. He further stated that he was detained in Police Station till midnight of 18.02.2010 without registering any criminal complaint. The petitioner also pleaded that he was released on 19.02.2010 after respondent No.3 had obtained some guarantees on papers from the petitioner. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was inter alia stated that he summoned respondent No.3 and enquired into the matter apart from directing the Inspector of Police, Mummidivaram Circle to conduct detailed enquiry into the allegations contained in the legal notice got issued by the petitioner. He stated that the Inspector filed a report. A copy of which is annexed to the counter-affidavit. According to the said report, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is purely civil in nature and that respondent No.4 never gave a complaint to respondent No.3 and that the petitioner filed present petition on some apprehension. Respondent No.2 further stated that as respondent No.3 has not interfered in civil disputes, no action need be taken against him, that however, he warned the said respondent not to interfere in civil disputes. Respondent No.2 further averred that he issued general instructions to all the Station House Officers not to interfere in civil disputes and that if such interference comes to his notice, he will initiate serious action against them. No reply affidavit was filed to the above averments. This Court is satisfied with the explanation offered by respondent No.2. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6339 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th April, 2010 GHN