IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.10946 of 2008 Between: Syed Abdul Rasheed & others … Petitioners And State of A.P., rep., by The Station House Officer/Circle Inspector, Madhapur Police Station, Madhapur, Cyberabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Chandraiah Sunkara Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri R. Raghunandan Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri N. Subba Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10946 of 2008 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. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that the Station House Officer/Circle Inspector, Madhapur Police Station, Madhapur, Cyberabad, is interfering in the civil disputes between them and respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station, it is inter alia stated that on the complaint given by respondent No.2 that one Srinivas Reddy and two others trespassed into their patta land in Sy.No.11/part, Guttala Begumpet, he registered crime No.255 of 2008 under Sections 447 and 427 IPC on 30.04.2008 and took up investigation. He further stated that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined three witnesses including respondent No.2 and recorded their detailed statements. The Investigating Officer also secured the alleged accused Srinivas Reddy, examined him and collected documents in respect of his claim. He further stated that the documents standing in the name of Rashid Khan are forged and fabricated and therefore the provisions of law were altered by adding Sections 468 and 471 IPC and that the investigation is still pending for want of collection of some more evidence. It is also stated that knowing well that a criminal case was registered against the petitioners, they approached this Court by way of the present writ petition to preempt further investigation. Inasmuch as the petitioners are accused in the criminal case and the same is pending, no direction can be given to the police. However, respondent No.1 is directed to confine his interference to investigation and filing charge sheet/appropriate report without unduly interfering with the civil disputes. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.14254 of 2008 and WVMP.Nos.1646 and 2084 of 2008 are also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.07.2009 ES