IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9446 of 2009 Between: M.V. Nageswara Rao, S/o. M. Venkataiah, R/o. H.No. 11-1-914 to 919, Chintabai, Chilakalaguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police of A.P. Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police North Zone, Secunderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police Near Cantonment of Office, Maredpally, Secunderabad. 4 The Inspector of Police, Chilakalaguda Police Station, Secunderabad. 5 The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakalaguda Police Station, Secunderabad. 6 Ch. Gopal Rao, S/o. late Ch. Rajarao, Chilakalaguda, Secunderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.P.V.N.V.SASTRY Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for respondent No.6:MR K.V.RAJENDRA PRASAD The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner, who has serious disputes over properties with respondent No.6, filed this writ petition with the grievance that the police have been interfering with his life and personal liberty by taking him to the police station at the instance of respondent No.6 and beating him. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Chilakalaguda Police Station, Hyderabad, it is, inter alia, stated that on the complaint given by respondent No.6 to the effect that the petitioner trespassed into the disputed premises by force along with his henchmen and threatened the complainant with serious consequences apart from beating him, Crime No.255 of 2009 was registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 IPC; that as the petitioner allegedly created nuisance, several petty cases were also registered against him and that on the complaint given by the petitioner against respondent No.6, Crime No.278 of 2009 was registered on 03- 05-2009 after taking permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate as the complaint disclosed commission of non-cognizable offence. It is also stated that as there are serious disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 over certain properties, the police requested the Executive Magistrate for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Respondent No.4 denied the petitioner’s allegations of interference with his life and personal liberty. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police are hand-in-glove with respondent No.6 who has lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner is being tortured both physically and mentally. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for respondent No.6 denied these allegations. It needs to be noted that police have got limited role to play in the matter of civil disputes. If the parties to the civil dispute have indulged in acts, which constitute offences, the police will then interfere with such disputes only to the extent of taking action to register the complaint and investigate into the same in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. But in the guise of taking such action, they cannot violate the human rights and interfere with the life and personal liberty of the citizens even if they are accused. As there is no unimpeachable material filed on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate the allegations of interference with his life and personal liberty by the police, no conclusive findings can be given on these allegations. Since the police have come out with the denial of such interference, and they have further stated that investigation into both the cases is still pending, I do not find it appropriate to give any direction to the police except to the extent of directing them to complete the investigation and file necessary charge sheet/final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate expeditiously. The police, it is needless to observe, will respect the life and personal liberty of the citizens including the petitioner, even while dealing with them in connection with criminal cases. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.12333 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th June, 2009 vrn