IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5866 of 2009 Between: 1 Ch. Ashok Kumar S/o. Late Ch. Srinivasa Rao, R/o. H.No.17-7-434/1, Brahmandwardi Yakutpura, Hyderabad. 2 S.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late S.Ramulu, R/o. 7-214/1, ECIL X Roads, Opp Police Station, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station, Cyberabad, R.R.District. 2 R.Ramananda Kumar, S/o. R.Ashok Kumar, R/o. H.No.12-5-38/2, New NO.225, Vijayapuri, South Lalguda Post, Secunderabad. 3 K.ramesh, S/o. late Blakrishna Rao, R/o. H.No.12-5-38/2, New NO.225, Vijayapuri, South Lalguda Post, Secunderabad. 4 Dr K.Praful, S/o. K.Ramesh, R/o. H.No.12-5-38/2, New NO.225, Vijayapuri, South Lalguda Post, Secunderabad. 5 Smt K. Indira, W/o. K.Ramesh, R/o. H.No.12-5-38/2, New NO.225, Vijayapuri, South Lalguda Post, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5: MR.M.S.CHANDRESH The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners filed this Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the alleged interference of respondent No.1, in the civil disputes between them and respondent Nos.2 to 5, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners pleaded that petitioner No.2 purchased agricultural lands, admeasuring Ac.3.27 guntas in Survey Nos.403 and 421 (Part) of Rampally Village of Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed, dated 23-07-2008. That in mutation proceedings initiated, petitioner No.2 got his name mutated vide Proceedings, dated 31-10-2008, of the Tahsildar. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed O.S.No.1048 of 2008 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, against the petitioners for declaration that registered sale deed, dated 23-07-2008, is null and void and not binding on them and for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession. The petitioners further averred that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are trying to foist false cases against them and that, at their behest, respondent No.1 is calling them to the Police Station for compromising the case. Respondent No.1 and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed separate counter-affidavits. In his counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 inter alia stated that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint, which was referred by X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, to respondent No.1 under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that respondent No.1 registered the same as Crime No.204 of 2008 against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’); that the investigation revealed that petitioner No.1 (A1) got Ac.3-27 guntas of agricultural land, in Survey Nos.403 and 441 of Rampally Village, registered in his favour by creating forged and fabricated documents and sold the same to petitioner No.2 (A2) by conspiring with Sub-Registrar (A3) and A.4 to A.9 in the said Crime; that the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1744 and 1745 of 2008 in the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, and obtained anticipatory bail vide Order, dated 25-11-2008 and; that the investigation is almost completed and charge sheet will be filed shortly. It is also averred in the counter-affidavit that respondent No.3 lodged a complaint on 10-03-2009 against petitioner No.2 stating that on 09-03-2009 at about 12 Noon, persons named therein have trespassed into the land in question, damaged the plants, erased the name of the complainant on the board and wrote their names; that the said complaint was registered as Crime No.45 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC and that the investigation was commenced which revealed that prima facie case is made out against the accused therein. Respondent No.1 further stated that investigation will be completed and charge sheet will be filed shortly before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Respondent No.1 denied his interference in civil disputes except to the extent of registration of the cases and investigation into the same. He also denied his calling the petitioners to Police Station and forcing them to compromise in the matter. In view of pendency of two Criminal Cases wherein the petitioners are facing serious accusations, it is not possible for this Court to grant any relief to them, more so, when they have not disclosed the facts of pendency of the Criminal Cases against them and their obtaining anticipatory bails therein. This Court cannot place any fetters on the Police to investigate into the said two Criminal Cases. However, in the absence of any judicial Order passed by the competent Civil Court, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to interfere in civil disputes pertaining to the property, in respect of which Criminal Cases are pending. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7655 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th July, 2009 lur