IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6994 of 2007 Between: Karampudi Venkata Lakshmi … Petitioner And Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Home Counsel for respondents 5-7: Sri K. Chidambaram The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6994 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the relief claimed in the writ petition. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in seeking to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 7, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to interfere with her and her mother’s life and liberty. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.5 lodged a report on 14.03.2007 addressed to respondent No.3, but presented to the Circle Inspector of Police, Challapalli, that the said officer on receipt of the report, endorsed the same to respondent No.4 directing him to call both the parties and settle the dispute or register a case, that on the said instructions, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Challapalli, issued notice to both the parties to appear before the Circle Inspector on 16.03.2007 at 5.00 p.m. for the purpose of enquiry, that neither the petitioner nor her mother or any other party had attended the police station and that instead the petitioner submitted a petition on 23.02.2007 to the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, respondent No.2, requesting him to consider her representation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that on receipt of the said representation, respondent No.2, endorsed the same to the Circle Inspector directing him to verify the facts and take necessary action and that as his enquiry revealed that the dispute is purely civil in nature, the Circle Inspector advised respondent No.5 to approach the civil Court for resolution of the disputes. She further stated that according to her instructions, the police are not interfering in the civil disputes. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7, submitted that as the police have not registered the criminal case, his clients approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and on his reference under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the police registered a criminal case. The learned counsel further submitted that after investigation, the police filed charge sheet, that the petitioner was arrested and that the criminal case is still pending. From the abovementioned facts, it is evident that while there are disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.5 to 7 on the other, a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The fact that respondent No.5 had to file a private complaint fortifies the stand of the police that they are not interfering in the civil disputes. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to grant relief to the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.8911 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.06.2010. ES