The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.15688 of 2010 Dated 25th August, 2010 Between: Hanumanthu …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., and 2 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Vekatesh Gupta Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.3: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice, dated 12-06-2010, issued by respondent No.2- Sub-Inspector of Police, Narva, Mahabubnagar District. I have heard Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to put respondent No.3 on notice. The averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, disclose that disputes, over an extent of Ac.10-09 guntas in Survey No.40 of Jangamreddypally Village, Narva Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, exist between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.3 on the other. A revision petition before the District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, in relation to the mutation of names is stated to be pending. In this factual backdrop, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice, directing the petitioner and respondent No.3 not to enter the said land as there is an apprehension of breach of peace and public order. This Court, while issuing Notice Before Admission, on 06-07-2010 suspended the impugned notice. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that respondent No.3 has lodged a complaint on 03-10-2008 stating that the petitioner and his sons beat respondent No.3 and that the said report was registered as Crime No.38/08 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further stated that after the charge sheet was filed, the case was taken on file as CC.No.163 of 2009 by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur, Mahabubnagar District. It is further stated that as there was serious apprehension of breach of peace and likelihood of bloodshed, he advised both the parties to maintain peace and tranquillity and that he issued the impugned notice with good faith. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is issued by respondent No.2 without any power or jurisdiction. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is unable to trace the power of respondent No.2 to issue the impugned notice to any statutory provision. Respondent No.2, being in charge of a Police Station, is empowered to receive the information relating to commission of offences both cognizable and non-cognizable and charged with the duty of dealing with such information strictly in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’). It is no part of the function of respondent No.2 to prevent any party from dealing with the immovable properties/property as he likes. If there is apprehension of breach of peace and public order, it is only the Executive Magistrate, who is empowered to prevent such breach under Chapter X of the Code. If there is a genuine apprehension of breach of public peace, respondent No.2 can only send a report to the Executive Magistrate concerned and act in terms of the order, if any, passed by the Executive Magistrate. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction and is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.2 is restrained from interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 and is warned against any such interference, in purported exercise of his powers as a Police Officer, in future. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. As a sequel, WPMP.No.19764 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 25th August, 2010 lur