IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11487 of 2009 Between: N. Prabhakar S/o. N. Venkanna R/o. H.No. 2-4-358, Road No.1, Snehapuri Colony, Saroor Nagar, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Saroor Nagar Police Station, Saroor Nagar, R.R. District. 3 P. Kiran Kumar S/o. Late Yesudas R/o. H.No. 7-1, Narsingi Village, Rajender Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. 4 Sri Kanth S/o. not known to the petitioner R/o. Narsingi Village, Rajender Nagar Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4: ----- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in interfering in civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 and summoning the petitioner to the Police Station to settle the issue with the said respondents. In response to the notice issued by this Court on 12-06- 2009, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for home, on instructions, submitted that on 11-06-2009, respondent No.2 registered Crime No.702 of 2009 for various offences including Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The party-in-person submitted that it is only on account of filing this Writ Petition that respondent No.2 registered the case. Though the disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are purely civil in nature, as the grievance of the petitioner pertains to undue interference by respondent No.2 in the civil disputes, the legality or otherwise of registration of the Criminal Case against the petitioner cannot be gone into in this Writ petition. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by registration of the Criminal case, he is entitled to avail his remedies available in law. However, in the guise of registration of the Criminal Case, respondent No.2 is directed not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14787 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 19th June, 2009 LUR