IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.9792 of 2009 Between: K.Laxminarasamma @ Laxmi Narasu W/o.K.N.Srinivas Rao R/o.4- 7-41, Bapujinagar,Nacharam Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The STation House officer, Nacharam Police station Ranga Reddy District 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Ranga Reddy District 3 K.Laxmaiah S/o.Yellaiah R/o.H.No.7-57, Bapujinagar, Nacharam Ranga Reddy District … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.Kanaka Sundar. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 & R.2. None for R.3. This 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. The petitioner sought for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the property bearing House No.4-7-41 (Plot No.117), admeasuring 192 Square yards with 1140 SFT built up area in Bapujinagar, Nacharam, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.3. She claimed that the above-mentioned property was given to her as “Pasupu Kumkuma” at the time of her marriage in the year 1995. According to the petitioner, after the death of her mother, respondent No.3 started living with another woman, by name, Kousalya, and started interfering with her possession of the said property. The petitioner filed O.S.No.405 of 2009 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and on 4-2-2009 the said Court granted an order of status quo. The petitioner submitted representation dated 6-3-2009 to respondent No.1 to protect her life. On 18-4-2009 respondent No.3 trespassed into the house of the petitioner and damaged the windows of the house and furniture etc., and that out of fear of death the petitioner and her husband ran away from the house. The petitioner further stated that on 25-4-2009 respondent No.3 filed a private complaint in the Court of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, which was registered as Crime No.82 of 2009. The petitioner alleged that on 1-5-2009 respondent No.3, along with two Police Constables of Nacharam Police Station and ten to fifteen goondas, came to her house, broke open the main gate and tried to occupy the first floor of the house by threatening her mother-in-law. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner’s husband and his mother lodged a Police complaint, but no action was taken by respondent No.1 thereon. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order of status quo, the Police have not been protecting the possession of the said property of the petitioner and the lives of herself and her family members. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 it is, inter alia, stated that while the petitioner obtained an order of status quo on 4-2-2009 in O.S.No.405 of 2009, respondent No.3 filed a private complaint, which was referred by XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad to the Police, and registered as Crime No.82 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 423, 465, 468, 471, 384 and 120(B) IPC against the petitioner and others; and that the petitioner and others filed Criminal Petition No.3183 of 2009 in this Court for quashing the said complaint. It is further stated that this Court granted stay of the said criminal proceedings by order dated 6-5-2009; that in pursuance of the representation of the petitioner respondent No.1 visited the disputed property and his enquiries revealed that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, who are no other than daughter and father respectively; and that no incident as alleged by the petitioner has occurred. Respondent No.1 also denied harassment of the petitioner, detaining her at the Police Station and the Police accompanying respondent No.3 along with goondas to the house of the petitioner. He further stated that the complaint of the mother-in-law of the petitioner was registered as Crime No.87 of 2009 against respondent No.3 for the offences under Sections 448, 427 and 506, read with Section 34 IPC; and that the investigation into the said crime revealed that the complaint is totally false and, accordingly, the case was closed as civil in nature on 15-6-2009. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 stated that he is ready to provide Police protection to the petitioner as and when she requires the same. The facts noted above clearly show that serious disputes persist between the petitioner and respondent No.3 over the property and that they have gone to the extent of filing criminal cases against each other. A perusal of the status quo order passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, shows that it was granted till 23-3-2009. Inasmuch as the dispute being civil in nature, the Police cannot be directed to interfere in such a civil dispute. However, if the petitioner apprehends threat to her life or that of her family members, she shall always be free to approach respondent No.1 for necessary protection. As noted above, respondent No.1 in his counter-affidavit expressed his readiness to give such protection. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:02-7-2009 MNR