IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.640 of 2009 Between: Sri Purma Reddy Sammi Reddy S/o. Adi Reddy R/o. Lasmakkapalle H/o. Veenavanka (M) Kareemnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State , Rep. by Secretary Home Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Station House Officer, P.S. Veenavanka, Kareemnagar District. 3 Mekala Laxma Reddy S/o. Raji Reddy R/o. Lasmakkapali H/o. Veenavanka Kareemnagar District. 4 Mekala Shankar Reddy S/o. Raji Reddy R/o. Lasmakkapali H/o. Veenavanka Kareemnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4:MR. SYED KHADER MASTHAN FOR MR. B.VIJAYSEN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in extending police aid to the petitioner against the interference of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the petitioner’s right to enjoy the property in question, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Syed Khader Masthan, learned counsel representing Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. There is a dispute in respect of an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas of land in Survey Nos.308 and 309/A situated at Pothireddipally Village, Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District. O.S.No.7 of 2008 filed by the petitioner on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad against respondent Nos.3 and 4 was decreed ex parte on 23.07.2008. As respondent Nos.3 and 4 allegedly continued to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the said property even after passing of the said decree, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 21.11.2008 before respondent No.2. The petitioner pleaded that on the memo issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Huzurabad, respondent No.2 registered the petitioner’s complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that no investigation has been commenced so far in the said crime. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that after registering the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the answering respondent has undertaken investigation, during which, he examined three witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC on 26.12.2008 in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurabad. No reply affidavit is filed. Therefore, from the above-referred uncontroverted averments contained in the counter-affidavit, it is evident that respondent No.2 has taken appropriate action in accordance with law by not only investigating into the crime but also filing the charge sheet. In the face of these facts, the grievance of the petitioner does not any longer survive. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.792 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th JUNE, 2009. kvni