THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21052 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is said to have established a Church at Amberpet. It appears that there are disputes between the petitioner on the one hand and another society, which is registered with the participation of respondents 4 to 8. A complaint was submitted by the petitioner before respondents 2 and 3 herein i.e., Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Station House Officer, P.S. Amberpet alleging that respondents 4 to 8 are interfering with the affairs of the Church. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in taking steps on the complaint submitted by the petitioner is violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and accordingly seeks directions vis-à-vis respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary police protection to it. On behalf of respondents 4 to 8, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner initially filed a suit for injunction against them and that the same was returned by the trial Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. An appeal filed against it is also said to have been dismissed. Reference is made to certain writ petitions filed by the petitioner, which in turn were dismissed. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit. It is mentioned that on the complaint submitted by it, the 3rd respondent registered F.I.R.No.49 of 2010 on 09.02.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home and the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8. In case, a complaint is made by any particular individual, about any criminal acts, in relation to him, the police can certainly be required to take necessary action in accordance with law duly verifying the facts. On the other hand, if it is in relation to administration of property, whether religious or otherwise, the aggrieved party has to approach the civil Court for the relief of declaration of its rights or for mere injunction, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The grievance pointed out by the petitioner has several facets. So far as the alleged interference of respondents 4 to 8 is concerned, the petitioner has to approach a civil Court. However, if it is in relation to any bodily attack, the 3rd respondent would be under obligation to take necessary action, if a compliant is filed. The petitioner himself states that F.I.R.No49 of 2010 was registered as recently as on 09.02.2010. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to work out its rights vis-à-vis any property by approaching the civil Court and directing the 3rd respondent to take further steps in F.I.R.No.49 of 2010, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 02.03.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21052 of 2009 Date: 02.03.2010 JSU