IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 11371 of 2005 BETWEEN: M. Baba Khan S/o. Gulam Khader Khan, R/o. 18-12-418/B/89, Hafeez Baba Nagar, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Police, Chatrinaka Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chatrinaka Police Station, Hyderabad. ...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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in interfering in the civil disputes and summoning the petitioner to the Police station without any criminal offence and threatening and demanding the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the property bearing H.No.18-1-337/B/86, admeasuring 148 sq. yards situated at Kandikal Gate, Uppuguda, Hyderabad during the subsistence of injunction orders passed in I.A.No.549/2005 in O.S.No.2721/2005 dated 6-5- 2005 on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as unconstitutional, contrary to Law, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, while directing the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere in civil disputes and further directing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents not to summon the petitioner to the Police, station or in any manner interfere with the personal life and liberty, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that he is the owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.18-1-337/B/86 admeasuring 148 sq. yards situated at Kandikal Gate, Uppuguda, Hyderabad by virtue of notarized agreement of sale dated 09.02.1999 and when there was some interference by third party he filed a suit in O.S.No.2721 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained injunction in I.A.No.549 of 2005 by order dated 06.05.2005. It is stated that in spite of the said injunction order, the police is interfering with the civil disputes and therefore, their action is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Counter has been filed stating that there is a dispute with regard to the said property, which is situated on the border of Saibaba Nagar and Narkipool Bagh, where different community people are residing, as such, a police picket was arranged at the disputed site and requested the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad to issue proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain law and order problem and case in Cr.No.115 of 2005 was suo motto registered the Sub-Inspector of Police and took up investigation. On 08.05.2005 a police constable submitted a written report stating that the petitioner and the men of one R. Prabhakar were altercating with each other at the disputed site and causing breach of peace and public tranquility and when he tried to rescue them, they did not listen to him, so he filed the report based on the a case in Cr.No.116 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Sections 143, 506, 447 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code on 09.05.2005 against the petitioner and others and investigation was taken up. While so, on a complaint made by the petitioner a case in Cr.No.117 of 2005 under Section 151 Cr.P.C was registered and investigation was taken up. 3. In view of the pendency of the criminal cases in Cr.No.115 of 2005 for issuing Section 145 Cr.P.C proceedings and Cr.Nos.116 and 117 of 2006, the controversy cannot be resolved in this writ petition and it is for the petitioner to prosecute for the disposal of the said cases, in accordance with law, which are not the subject matter of this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 3, 2008 DSK