Chinthala Cheran, v. The Superintendant Of Police, Warangal District.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.33243 OF 2012 Between:

Chinthala Cheran and others .. Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Warangal District and others.

.. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 03-08-2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.33243 of 2012 ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioners in this case was that the police authorities were interfering in their civil disputes with the 4th respondent and were pressurizing them to withdraw the civil cases

filed by them by threatening to foist false cases upon them. The Circle Inspector of Police, Mulug, Warangal District, filed a counter-affidavit stating that upon the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent, the Station House Officer, Mulug Police Station, registered Crime No.101 of 2011 under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 471 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. A charge sheet was laid vide C.C.No.91 of 2012 before the competent criminal court and the said case was stated to be pending trial. Further details were given as to the involvement of the petitioners in criminal cases and the Circle Inspector of Police finally stated that the police authorities never interfered in the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the 4th respondent.

No reply-affidavit was filed by the petitioners rebutting the above counter-affidavit averments.

In the light of the afore-stated facts, it is clear that the police authorities, having received a complaint against the petitioners as to their alleged involvement in criminal activity, would be bound to take steps in accordance with law/due procedure and the petitioners can have no grievance against the same. Insofar as their apprehension as to the police involving themselves in their civil disputes is concerned, the stand of the police authorities, as put forth by the Circle Inspector of Police, Mulug, to the effect that they are not interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioners and the 4th respondent, is taken on record.

The writ petition is accordingly closed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 3rd August, 2015 IBL