IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2555 of 2008 Between: P. Rajender Reddy … Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Nagendra Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri M.S.N. Prasad This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2555 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in interfering with the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4 in O.S.No.2888 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere in the civil disputes. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.S.N. Prasad for respondent No.4. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner filed O.S.No.2888 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, West/South, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District for permanent injunction against respondent No.4 in respect of 250 square yards of land bearing plot No.474 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the said suit is being contested, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.1 to summon him to the police station and to direct him to vacate the suit plot in order to allow respondent No.4 to occupy the same. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit. The fact that a civil suit is pending is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.4. If respondent No.4 asserts his right over the property, he can do so in accordance with law. In my considered opinion, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no business whatsoever to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4. In his counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 stated that on the complaint given by respondent No.5, he registered crime No.444 of 2007, but the petitioner’s name is not mentioned as an accused and the investigation revealed that the petitioner is involved in the crime. The counter-affidavit is thus wholly ambiguous. Respondent No.1 having said that the investigation revealed that the petitioner is involved in the crime, did not claim that the FIR is altered and the petitioner’s name is included as an accused to the said crime. Be that as it may, so long as the petitioner is not shown as an accused, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not interfere with his personal liberty. They shall also not interfere with the civil dispute, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.2888 of 2007 between the petitioner and respondent No.4. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3282 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.03.2008 ES