IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16509 of 2007 Between: Palagiri Rama Mohan Reddy S/o.Palagiri Narayana Reddy R/o.Door No.2/10,Main Bazar, Vallur village & Mandal Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh Hyderabad 3 The Circele Inspector of police, Chilkalaguda Police station Chilakalaguda, Secunderabad 4 B.krishnaveni D/o.Late Vittal Rao R/o.6-1-119/B,Padmarao Nagar (Walker Town) Secunderabad, Hyderabad 5 B.Rukmani D/o.late Vittal Rao R/o.6-1-119/B, Padmarao Nagar, (Walker town) Secunderabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the petitioner’s telegraphic representations, dated 28.07.2007 and the highhanded action of respondent No.3 in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of property admeasuring 260 sq.yards bearing door No.6-1- 119/10/A, Padmarao Nagar (Walker Town), Secunderabad as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that on 03.08.2007, Crime No.533 of 2007 was registered on the complaints given by respondent No.5 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 448 and 506 IPC and the petitioner was arrested along with others and were released on bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate. She further submitted that the criminal case is pending. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been taking action on the complaint sent by him, he has an effective remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, liberty in this regard is given to him. With regard to the allegation of interference by respondent No.3 in the civil dispute, it is needless to observe that except to the extent of investigation into the crime, respondent No.3 cannot interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the other. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.21005 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th APRIL, 2008 kvni