IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7917 of 2008 Between: M/s. Bigapple Computers & Communications Pvt. Ltd., office at "Bigapple Arcade". 1-8-167 to 179 S.D. Road, Secunderabad, rep by its Managing Director Mr. ankit Agarwal S/o Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, aged 20 yesra R/o Manek Prem" 1-8-673, IDA, Azamabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The commissioner of Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, chikkadpally, Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This is yet another case of alleged police interference in a property dispute. The petitioner claimed to have purchased a house bearing Municipal No.1-2-605/A/17 out of a total extent of land admeasuring Ac.5.26 guntas in Survey No.24/P (old Survey No.18) situated at Banda Maisamma, Near Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed vide document No.1341 of 2008, dated 28.03.2008. It is alleged that when the said property was being developed, respondent No.3 came to the site along with Constables on 06.04.2008 and illegally seized the Excavator and three dumper trucks deployed by the Civil Contractor Mr. Jaisimha Reddy, to whom the work was entrusted. It is further alleged that respondent No.3 had taken with him the site Supervisor Mr.Uday to the Police Station and illegally detained him there and that when Mr.Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, who is the father of the Managing Director of the petitioner company, went to the Police Station, he was taken by respondent No.3 to the office of respondent No.2, who, without any reason abused and shouted at him for purchasing the said site without informing the police. It is further alleged that after releasing him, Mr.Uday was again taken into custody on 07.04.2008 and was left in the evening. The petitioner alleged that the police are not allowing them to go ahead with the work and that four Constables were posted at the site to prevent any work from being executed. This Court on earlier occasions took serious note of the police interference in civil disputes. While I do not intend to repeat the observations made by this Court on earlier occasions, the need for the respondents to stay away from the civil disputes is required to be reiterated. The respondents shall do well to realize that it is no part of their duty to interfere in civil disputes unless a proper complaint alleging commission of a cognizable offence is filed by a citizen. Unless a crime is registered, the police cannot meddle with the disputes between private parties over the private properties. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. If in future, the police interfere with the petitioner’s right in respect of the property in question, it is permitted to file a private complaint against those police personnel, who interfere with such rights apart from making a complaint to the Director General of Police. In such an event, the Director General of Police shall examine the complaint and take appropriate action against the erring Police Officers. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10415 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th APRIL, 2008 kvni