THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30006 OF 2011 ORDER: A curious case where the petitioner, a 70 year old widow, has ﬁled this Writ Petition questioning interference by the second respondent in the civil disputes between her on the one hand and her daughter and son-in-law on the other. The third respondent (daughter of the petitioner) is said to be physically handicapped. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition serious allegations are made against the second respondent of repeatedly calling the petitioner to the police station in connection with the aforementioned civil disputes. The Writ Petition was ﬁled on 10.11.2011, and was listed on 11.11.2011 on which date the Learned Government Pleader for Home sought time to obtain instructions. The matter was listed thereafter on 18.11.2011 on which date the counter aﬃdavit of the second respondent was ﬁled. While denying ever having called the petitioner to the police station, the second respondent stated therein that the third respondent had given a complaint on 12.11.2011, which was registered on the very same day i.e., on 12.11.2011, and the matter was taken up for investigation. As this Court was of the view, prima facie, that the averments in the counter aﬃdavit did not disclose the true facts, a report was called for from the ﬁrst respondent before any action could be initiated against the second respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). The matter again suﬀered adjournment on 21.11.2011, and on 22.11.2011 the report of the ﬁrst respondent was placed before this Court. The report of the ﬁrst respondent narrates in detail the rival claims of possession of land by the petitioner on the one hand and the third respondent on the other, and records a ﬁnding in favour of the third respondent. The ﬁrst respondent stated that on 22.07.2011 the third respondent had approached the Oﬃcer on Special Duty in Gudur Sub- division with similar allegations; the matter was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Vakadu; since the issue was between the mother and daughter, no case was registered against the petitioner; eﬀorts were made for an amicable settlement by the police; the matter was referred to the Tahsildar, Kota for necessary action; the petitioner had approached the Civil Court, Gudur with a false claim of possession; and, since no orders were passed in favour of the petitioner in the Civil Suit filed by her, she had approached this Court with a false claim of possession of land, and interference by the police. The ﬁrst respondent further stated that the second respondent did not summon the petitioner at the instance of the fourth respondent (son-in-law of the petitioner), and this assertion in his counter aﬃdavit was correct; his enquiries revealed that the third respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the land with valid title; the second respondent should have presented the facts before this Court stating that he had called the petitioner on 05.11.2011 as per the endorsement by the Tahsildar, Kota Mandal; the second respondent should not have registered the case against the petitioner on 12.11.2011 i.e., subsequent to the ﬁling of the Writ Petition on 10.11.2011; therefore disciplinary action was initiated against him by issuing charge memo dated 20.11.2011; he was transferred with a direction to report at the District Head-quarters at Nellore; and accordingly he had reported in vacancy reserve on 20.11.2011. The said report of the ﬁrst respondent is wrong on two counts. It is neither open to the police oﬃcials to take over the role of Civil Court and adjudicate on disputed questions of possession or title, nor was it open to the ﬁrst respondent to make a detailed analysis of the rival claims, and record a ﬁnding (akin to a judicial proceedings) that petitioner had made a false claim of possession. The mere fact that a Writ Petition was ﬁled before this Court does not preclude the police oﬃcials from registering a complaint subsequent thereto. For any action to be taken, in accordance with law, no permission is required unless there is an order prohibiting the respondent police oﬃcers from doing so. While the second respondent’s actions, for reasons stated hereinafter, are ex facie illegal, and may well have necessitated disciplinary action being taken against him in that regard by the ﬁrst respondent, no action can be taken against him merely for registering a complaint subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition. This Court examined the contents of the report of the ﬁrst respondent, and by its order dated 22.11.2011 observed that, prima facie, the said report was a cover up to justify the illegal acts of the second respondent. As the ﬁrst respondent did not choose to cause an enquiry into the allegations speciﬁed by this Court in its order dated 18.11.2011, he was directed to appear in Court on 24.11.2011. On 24.11.2011, both the ﬁrst and the second respondents appeared in person. On being asked as to how the petitioner could have visualised on 10.11.2011 when she ﬁled the Writ Petition that a complaint would be ﬁled against her by the third respondent on 12.11.2011, and that the complaint would be registered on the same day i.e., on 12.11.2011, the ﬁrst respondent stated that the complaint was, in fact, submitted on 05.11.2011 and not on 12.11.2011 as erroneously stated by the second respondent in his counter aﬃdavit. On being asked as to why the second respondent did not choose to register the said complaint, (if any submitted to him on 05.11.2011), till 12.11.2011, and as to how he could have called the petitioner to the police station even before a complaint was registered, the ﬁrst respondent had no answer. He sought permission to withdraw the report ﬁled by him earlier. His presence was dispensed with, and he was permitted to ﬁle an aﬃdavit if he desired to withdraw the said report. The second respondent was also permitted to ﬁle an additional aﬃdavit explaining the circumstances under which he had received the complaint said to have been submitted by the third respondent on 05.11.2011. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled today, i.e., on 25.11.2011, the ﬁrst respondent states that, since the second respondent has already been transferred and as the matter had been entrusted to another oﬃcer, investigation would be carried on independently without the Investigating Oﬃcer being prejudiced by any observations made in his earlier report which he, in any case, seeks permission to withdraw. The ﬁrst respondent further states that he has issued a circular to all police officials in the District not to interfere in civil disputes. The second respondent is present in Court today. An aﬃdavit is ﬁled by him stating that it was only on the basis of the complaint ﬁled by the third respondent on 05.11.2011 that he had called the petitioner to the police station since he did not want to precipitate the matter as the dispute was a family dispute between the petitioner and her daughter i.e., the third respondent. He voluntarily stated that the petitioner had also given a complaint before him, which was noted as a general Diary entry on 05.11.2011. On being asked as to why the petitioner’s complaint was not registered, the second respondent has no answer. He would, however, request this Court to pardon him for his acts; not to initiate action under the Act as his long service ahead would be adversely aﬀected; and any action taken against him under the Act would be a blot in his service records. He would state that he is an ex-service man having rendered 15 years service in the army; he had joined the police force 2 ½ years ago; and his probation has been conﬁrmed recently. He would assure this Court that he would refrain from interfering in civil disputes in future, and would act strictly in accordance with law. The facts aforementioned may well justify action being taken against the oﬃcial respondents for misleading this Court, and for ﬁling false aﬃdavits in Court. However, considering the fact that the ﬁrst respondent is a member of the Indian Police Service and the second respondent had rendered 15 years service in the army; in the light of their submissions that action would be taken hereinafter strictly in accordance with law; they would refrain from interfering in civil disputes in future, and as they have sought pardon for their lapses, I do not propose to initiate action under the Act. Permission is accorded to the ﬁrst respondent to withdraw the report. It is made clear that the Investigating Oﬃcer, now entrusted with the investigation, shall investigate into the complaint registered against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law uninﬂuenced by any observations made in the report submitted to this Court by the ﬁrst respondent. It is also made clear that the Investigating Oﬃcer shall only call the petitioner to the police station, in connection with the investigation, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J November 25, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30006 OF 2011 November 25, 2011 MD