HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :22501 of 2007 Dated 4th February, 2008 Between K.Lakshmipathy …Petitioner and The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, and ors …Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22501 of 2007 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not taking action against the fourth respondent in spite of repeated complaints and pursuant to registration of case in Crime No. 634/2007 on the file of P.S., Gajuwaka, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of the residential site covered by Plot Nos. 2 and 3, admeasuring 815 square yards, situated in Sy.No. 34 of Visakhapatnam. It is stated that the petitioner initially secured some amount from the fourth respondent and when the same is not repaid, the fourth respondent filed suit in O.S.No. 388 of 1995, against the petitioner, on the file of the learned First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of Rs.7,35,087/- and the said suit was decreed on 5-3-2002. To execute the said decree, the fourth respondent filed E.P.No. 429 of 2002. It is further stated that, during the pendency of the said execution proceedings, on 16-5-2003, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the petitioner and fourth respondent, whereunder, it was agreed that, all the debts taken from the fourth respondent by the petitioner and his family members were settled by selling away the properties of the wife of the petitioner, subject to condition of the fourth respondent paying an amount of Rs.13.00 lakhs towards sale consideration and withdrawing the case filed by the fourth respondent against the petitioner. However, when the said compromise was not adhered to by the fourth respondent, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the police stating that without complying the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the fourth respondent has tried to trespass into his house-sites. Precisely, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though a case in Crime No. 634/2007 is registered, against the fourth respondent, for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 427,506 and 34 IPC, however, no steps have been taken. Separate counter affidavits are filed by the fourth and fifth respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, it is stated that initially there was a telephonic complaint from one Sri P.Ramabhadra Raju, a friend of the petitioner, complaining against the fourth respondent. But however, the preliminary enquiry revealed that the same is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. However, it is stated that on 14-9-2007, the petitioner has submitted a written complaint to the Head Constable and obtained receipt. On enquiry, the contents of the said complaint were found to be incorrect. It is further stated that the petitioner made further representation to the Commissioner of Police, South, Visakhapatnam, which was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, and, based on the same, a case in Crime No. 634/2007 is registered against the fourth respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 427 and 34 IPC. It is also stated that pursuant to the said complaint, substantial part of investigation is already completed and the investigation so far conducted reveals that the dispute is of civil nature. However, it is submitted that investigation is not yet completed and the same is in progress and some more witnesses are to be examined. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it is stated that pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner and he was put in possession of the disputed site. It is stated that a false complaint is lodged against him. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1,2, 3 & 5 and Sri ASC Bose, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. In view of the rival contentions of the petitioner and fourth respondent with regard to claim of possession, it is a matter, which cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition. However, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fifth respondent, it appears, substantial part of enquiry is already completed and some more witnesses are to be examined to file final report. In view of the fact that investigation is in progress, it is not for the petitioner to plead that no action has been taken pursuant to registration of Crime No. 634/2007. In view of the above circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the respondents to complete the investigation in Crime No. 634 of 2007, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and, file final report. It is made clear that investigation shall be done, on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------- JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY DATE: 4-2-2008 Msnr[hc1]. [hc1]