IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26268 of 2007 Between: 1 Datla Narendra Varma S/o. Venkatapaty Raju R/o. Lakshmi Narsapuram Village, Anaparty Mandal, E.G. District. 2 Datla Venkatapaty Raju S/o. Late Venkata Perumalla Raju R/o. Lakshmi Narsapuram Village, Anaparty Mandal, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, E.G. District, Kakinada. 2 Station House Officer, Bikkavole Police Station, Bikkavole Mandal, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Station House Officer, Bikkavole Police Station, E.G.District to take action as per the complaint dt.5-10-2007 and investigate the matter in accordance with law in the interest of justice and to pass any other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Sreemannarayana for Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Home The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No. 2 to take action on complaint dated 05-10-2007 filed by the petitioners and investigate the same. Heard Sri V. Sreemannarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In his affidavit, petitioner No.1 stated that his father, petitioner No.2 herein purchased 1/4th share of one Radhakrishnavenamma, wife of Perumalla Raju over an extent of Acs.6.05 cents in S.No.238/6 of Kapavaram Village, East Godavari District in the year 1982 under registered sale deed dated 25-06-1982, that for the remaining properties a trust was created and there was a dispute among the heirs with respect to the said property. It is further averred that in civil suit bearing O.S No. 22 of 1969 on the file of Sub-court, Rajahmundry, the 1/4th share of the vendor of petitioner No.2 was confirmed, that when certain persons belonging to said Preumalla Raju’s Trust made a claim over the property in question by filing O.S No. 76 of 2003, the petitioners filed written statement and counter affidavit in the suit and the I.A respectively and the civil Court declined to grant injunction. It is further averred that when the trustee by name Venkatapaty Raju tried to interfere with the petitioners’ possession, they approached respondent No.2 on 05-10-2007 with a complaint. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said complaint having been given, respondent No.2 has not taken any action by registering the crime and arresting the accused. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that the preliminary investigation into the complaint given by the petitioners revealed that the same was civil in nature and in view of the serious disputes between Smt. Datla Padmavathi and five others on one side and the petitioners on the other with regard to harvesting of crops, respondent No.2 registered Crime No. 107 of 2007 under Section 145 Cr.P.C in order to maintain law and order and filed a requisition before the Tahsildar, Biccavole Mandal on 27-11-2007 to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C and that the same was taken on file by the latter vide M.C No. 9 of 2007 by summoning both the parties. He further stated that as the dispute is civil in nature, no crime is registered on the complaint given by the petitioners and if they are aggrieved by the same, they are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and the pleadings of the parties. From the undisputed facts, it is clear that civil disputes persist between the petitioners and rival claimants with regard to the properties. In my opinion, respondent No.2 rightly initiated proceedings under Section145 Cr.P.C on the basis of which the Tahsildar took the case on file and the said proceedings are pending. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the action of respondent No.2 in not registering a criminal case does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 34255 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 24-04-2008 ks ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, E.G. District, Kakinada. 2 Station House Officer, Bikkavole Police Station, Bikkavole Mandal, E.G. District. 3 2CCs to the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, Hyderabad (OUT) 4 2CD copies