IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3230 of 2008 Between: Sanggurthi Janardhanamma … Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Chinna Baba Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3230 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to provide police protection to maintain law and order to enable the petitioner to raise fencing to her lands situated in Sy.Nos.11/2 and 11/3 for an extent of Ac.0.51 cents and Ac.0.96 cents respectively of Rammanapalem Village of Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District as per orders of respondent Nos.6 to 8 vide proceedings dated 14.03.2006. The petitioner also sought for a direction to respondent Nos.5 to 10 to fix the boundaries to her lands. A perusal of the record shows that there are serious disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.11 to 13 on the other. The petitioner claims that respondent Nos.6 to 8 passed orders on 28.05.2003 and 14.03.2006 purporting to declare the rights of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the complaints given to respondent Nos.1 to 3, so far, no crime has been registered against respondent Nos.11 to 13, who were illegally interfering with her possession of the above lands. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that purported complaint dated 22.07.2007 was not received by respondent No.3 and hence no action could be taken by him for registration of crime against respondent Nos.11 to 13. She also submitted that in the representation made to respondent No.1, the petitioner merely sought for police protection from interference by respondent Nos.11 to 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that interests of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to file a complaint before respondent No.4 and on receipt of such complaint, respondent No.4 shall take action in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). If respondent No.4 does not act with reasonable despatch, the petitioner is left free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. As regards the direction to afford police protection, sought by the petitioner, in my considered view, the same is wholly misconceived. Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.11 to 13 on the other. Unless a Court of competent jurisdiction declares the rights of the petitioner and gives appropriate directions to the police concerned, the police are not expected to interfere with the civil disputes. Therefore, the petitioner is relegated to the appropriate civil Court to seek her grievances redressed. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4208 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2008 ES