IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14930 of 2008 Between: Smt.C.Sujatha W/o.C.Nagaraju C/o.Naganna, Door No.16-138, Uma Nagar, Anantapur, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 C. Kondameedi Rayudu S/o.Kondappa R/o.6/4/300, Ram Nagar, Anantapur, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in directing the petitioner to present in the Police Station for settling the Joint Family Property Disputes even though the suit is pending before the Civil Court as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the Joint Family property disputes of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14930 OF 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that there are certain civil disputes between her and the 3rd respondent in respect of joint family properties, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.219 of 2008 filed by her on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anantapur. Her grievance is that, the 2nd respondent- Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Anantapur, at the instigation of the 3rd respondent, has been interfering in the civil disputes, calling her to police station and insisting for settlement of the said civil disputes. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent- Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Anantapur, wherein, while denying the allegation of the 2nd respondent calling the petitioner to police station and insisting for settlement of civil disputes, it is stated that no complaint whatsoever is received against the petitioner as on today by the 2nd respondent and hence the question of summoning her to police station does not arise. It is further categorically stated that the 2nd respondent was never influenced by the 3rd respondent and he never interfered in the civil disputes, and only to prevent the police from taking any action in future, if any complaint is lodged against the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. In view of the above counter averments, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and not to call the petitioner to police station without following the due process of law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 26th November, 2008 IBL