IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1360 of 2008 Between: T. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. T. Subba Rao, (Late) R/o. H.No. 30-17-6, Varanasivari Street, Sitaramapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, and Chairman of Pre Litigation, Counseling Forum Krishna District, Sub Collector Office, at Vijayawada. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. 3 The Station House Officer, S.R. Pet Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 Mr. Bandaru Prasad, s/o. not known to the petitioner, R/o. H.No. 18-9-14, Kedarasipeta, Mail Lane, Vijayawada, Krishna District A.P. 5 Mr. Manmadha Rao, s/o. not known to the petitioner, Police Commissionrate, Vijayawada. ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature or any harm to me and my family members who is no jurisdiction or authority in interfering into the subject matter which is a purely civil in nature. Counsel for the Petitioner: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondents 1, 2, 3 & 6: GP for HOME The Court made the following: Order: Petitioner, as party-in-person, has filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering in the civil disputes between him and the fourth respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that fourth respondent herein had approached the Pre-litigation Counseling Forum, Vijayawada and submitted a representation stating that petitioner borrowed certain amount from him. It is stated that based on the same, a case in PLCF P.No.562/2007 dated 06-12-2007, in Pre- litigation Complaint Cell, has been registered against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the dispute is of civil nature, respondents are interfering with his personal life and liberty. 3. Heard the petitioner, who has appeared as party-in-person, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that on 06-12-2007, Sri Bandaru Prasad, the fourth respondent herein, approached the Central Complaint Cell located in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and submitted a representation stating that his son-in-law Sri Nandivada Vijay Kumar was arrested in a case of attempt to murder and in that connection an amount of Rs.15,300/- was paid to the petitioner on his assurance that he would secure bail to his son-in-law. It is stated that as the complaint was referred to the Pre-litigation Cell Forum headed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna, on 18-12-2007, the petitioner and the fourth respondent attended before the Forum, wherein the petitioner has admitted that he received an amount of Rs.1,500/- from the fourth respondent, but, however, it was the case of the fourth respondent that petitioner has taken an amount of Rs.15,300/- from him to arrange bail to his son-in-law. It is stated that thereafter petitioner failed to attend the Forum and in the meanwhile, fourth respondent filed a complaint before the Police stating that when he had demanded the petitioner to repay the money paid by him, petitioner had come to his house and beat him and his family members. On such complaint, a case in Cr.No.31 of 2008, on the file of the Station House Officer, V Town P.S., Vijayawada, was registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and steps are being taken to apprehend him. Respondents, while denying the allegations of the petitioner that there is interference in civil disputes, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Though it is the case of the petitioner that respondent-Police are interfering in the civil disputes between him and the fourth respondent, but, it is to be seen that they have acted upon the complaint of the fourth respondent and registered a case in Cr.No.31 of 2008, on the file of the Station House Officer, V Town P.S., Vijayawada against him, for the alleged offences referred above. Though it appears that investigation is taken up in the said crime, no final report is filed as on today. 6. As the respondent-Police have specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner that they are interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, I dispose of the writ petition directing the sixth respondent to complete the investigation in Cr.No.31 of 2008, pending on his file, as expeditiously as possible, and file a final report, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, it is made clear that during the process of investigation, respondents shall not interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner. However, they may interrogate the petitioner and take steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 29, 2008 MRR