IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24212 of 2008 Between: Rednam Suresh & another. … Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary to Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Ms. A. Sreelatha for Sri S.I. Varahagiri Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24212 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking away the anglers and other material used for erection of hoarding on the top of the petitioners’ house, as illegal. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the petitioners and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards costs of the material with interest @ 24% p.a. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3. In their affidavit, the petitioners made a long description of the dispute between them and respondent No.5 over erection of a hoarding on the top of their building. In connection with the said dispute, the proprietor of respondent No.5 allegedly trespassed into the petitioners’ house and approached respondent No.3, who allegedly exerted pressure on the petitioners by summoning them to the police station. The petitioners pleaded that when they lodged a report against respondent No.5 for criminal trespass, the police behaved rudely towards them and explained that the dispute is civil in nature and that the police cannot interfere with such dispute. The petitioners also alleged that in the meantime respondent No.5 with his workers removed the hoarding completely from their house and that on 07.11.2007, the III Town Police came to their house and informed them that respondent No.4 has summoned them again and as respondent Nos.3 and 4 were behaving highhandedly, the petitioners approached the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam; that on 09.11.2007, when the petitioners tried to sell the iron anglers, petitioner No.1 received a communication while he was traveling that people of respondent No.5 have come in an auto and taken away the small pieces of material and that on 10.01.2007, petitioner No.1 received another communication that some people came in a van and loaded the iron material therein into the said van. It is further stated that when petitioner No.1 arrived at Visakhapatnam from Srikakulam at 5.20 p.m., he received a phone call from respondent No.4 that respondent No.5 is taking the iron anglers, as it is their property and that petitioner No.1 should not stop them. The record shows that notice is not served on respondent No.5. Though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the basis of the copies of General Diary, submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 approached respondent No.3 on 13.10.2007 and after making discrete enquiries from both the parties, respondent No.3 has endorsed in the General Diary that the parties are advised to approach the civil Court. as the dispute raised by them is civil in nature. On a careful consideration of the pleadings contained in the affidavit, I have no reason to find that non-registration of case by the police is per se illegal, because having regard to the nature of the dispute raised by the parties and their earlier relationship in connection with raising of hoarding over the house of the petitioners, the police felt that the dispute is one of civil in nature. If the petitioners felt aggrieved by non-registration of criminal case, they have a remedy by way of filing a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. If they are also felt aggrieved by the action of respondent No.5 in taking away the hoarding material, they are entitled to approach the civil Court for recovery of the value thereof. With regard to the allegations of interference by the police, even on the petitioners’ own showing, the police advised both the parties to approach the civil Court. This itself would belie the petitioners’ allegation that the police have acted highhandedly or interfered in the dispute between them and respondent No.5. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.31556 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for early hearing is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.06.2010 ES