IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8746 of 2008 Between: Mandapati Narasimha rao, S/o. Kondaiah, Hindu, Harijan, Mala, R/o. Yerazerla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Inspector of Police, Tonguturu Police Station, Prakasam District. 2 Pelluri Malakonda Narasimha Rao, S/o. Satya Bhaskar, Hindu, Yerazerla Village, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the highhanded action of respondent No.1 in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner claims that in respect of an immovable property, he filed O.S.No.78 of 2008 on the file of the learned I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole on 19.02.2008 for permanent injunction against respondent No.2; that he also filed an I.A. for temporary injunction and that respondent No.2 having taken adjournment in the said I.A., filed O.S.No.102 of 2008 claiming to be the GPA holder of 21 plaintiffs shown therein before the said Court for permanent injunction against the petitioner and defendants 2 to 6, who are his vendors, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 0.65 cents out of Ac.1.63 cents in Survey No.321/1 of Yerazerla Village, Ongole Mandal. The petitioner averred that in the said suit, he entered appearance and took time for filing counter affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 prevailed over respondent No.1 to summon the petitioner to Tonguturu Police Station. On 10.04.2008, respondent No.1 called him, took him into custody all through the night and abused him in vulgar language in the name of caste. He alleged that respondent No.1, who has no concern with the civil suits, is threatening him to withdraw O.S.No.78 of 2008 filed by him on 19.02.2008. This Court on earlier occasions took serious note of the police interference in civil disputes. While I do not intend to repeat the observations made by this Court on earlier occasions, the need for the police to stay away from the civil disputes is required to be reiterated. They shall do well to realize that it is no part of their duty to interfere in civil disputes unless a proper complaint alleging commission of a cognizable offence is filed by a citizen. Unless a crime is registered, the police cannot meddle with the disputes between private parties over the private properties. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.11598 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st APRIL, 2008 kvni