IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 27229 of 2005 BETWEEN: Chinthala Lakshmi Narayana Murthy, S/o. Appala Naidu, R/o. Plot No.C-5, Rajavihar Apartment, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Station House Officer, Bhimunipatnam Circle, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Inspector of Police, Bhimunipatnam Circle, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam District. 4 Kolli Apparao, S/o. Appalaswamy, R/o. Mallayyapalem, Madhurawada Post, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in interfering in a Civil dispute at the instance of the 4th respondent and calling him to the Police Station and making him to sit there for days together and pressurizing him to vacate the land an extent of Ac 1.40 cents in S.No.153/1P of Madhurawada of Visakhapatnam District in spite of a decree of permanent injunction in his favour in O.S.No.218/2003 against the 4th respondent and his men as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unjust and against the constitutional guarantees and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the said civil dispute and not to call him to the Police Station and not to harass him and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. V.S.R. ANJANEYULU The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. 2. All the allegations made against the official respondents have been denied in the counter stating there no illegal interference in the civil disputes of the petitioner at the instance of the fourth respondent but based on a complaint lodged by the petitioner himself a case in Cr.No.357 of 2005 was registered and investigation has been taken up. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that as a case in Cr.No.357 of 2005 was already registered, it cannot be said that there was illegal interference by the official respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 10, 2008 DSK