HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7938 of 2011 Date : 01.04.2011 Between : Smt. Galla Sanyasamma & others. …..Petitioners And The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7938 of 2011 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in calling them to the Police Station on 22.02.2011 and insisting them to settle the civil dispute with the 3rd respondent by compromising the matter with him by giving half share of the suit schedule property, covered by Suit in O.S.No.267 of 2007, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent is the brother-in-law of the 1st petitioner (her husband’s brother). With regard to partition, a civil dispute is pending in O.S.No.267 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam. At that stage, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, Police are interfering with the life and liberty of petitioners by calling them to the Police Station and insisting them to settle the matter by partitioning the properties in the ratio of half and half between petitioners and the 3rd respondent. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that as the dispute is of civil nature, respondents 1 and 2 have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Based on the written instructions, dated 28.03.2011, sent by the Station House Officer, Gopalapatnam Police Station, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the 3rd respondent has initially lodged a complaint on 17th February 2011, stating that he is running business in the name and style of ‘Sri Venkatachala X-Ray Clinic’ and due to road widening works, the shop was partly removed and on 17.02.2011, when his elder son went to the shop, petitioner Nos.4 and 6 and one Bogadi Swamy Naidu, have removed the covers on the X-ray plant illegally and hence, he requested to take action. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner has also sent a complaint through registered post on 20th February 2011 to the Station House Officer of Gopalapatnam Police Station, stating that her husband’s brother-the 3rd respondent herein, has filed a civil suit for injunction against her and her children and obtained injunction orders and is trying to occupy her x- ray shop illegally. It is stated that on examination of both the complaints, as it was found that the dispute is of civil nature, they have advised both the parties to approach the civil Court. It is further stated that the 6th petitioner has lodged another complaint on 22.02.2011 before the Station House Officer, Gopalapatnam Police Station, alleging that the 3rd respondent and his son have quarrelled and beat his uncle, B.Swamy Naidu, by abusing him. Based on the said complaints, petty cases are registered in Crime Nos.31 and 32 of 2011 under Section 160 of IPC and the said cases are pending. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the petitioners were never called to the Police Station and they were never insisted to settle the civil dispute with the 3rd respondent. When cases are registered in Petty Case Nos.31 and 32 of 2011 under Section 160 of IPC, based on the complaints made by both the parties, and when such cases are investigated into, the same cannot be construed as interference by the Police in civil dispute. Though the petitioners have alleged that they are being called to the Police Station on 22.02.2011, from written instructions, it is clear that petitioner No.6 himself has approached the Police on the said date and lodged a complaint against respondent No.3 and others. As it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader based on written instructions that the petitioners are never called to the Police Station, nor they were insisted to settle the dispute with the 3rd respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, placing on record the said submission. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st April 2011 ajr