Bakka Srinivasa Reddy, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.2119 of 2015 BETWEEN Bakka Srinivasa Reddy ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner herein states that he has filed O.S.No.84 of 2014 before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, against respondent Nos.5 to 8 with regard to item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule viz., an extent of Ac.0-501/2 cents in survey No.407/1 each. While the said suit is pending, alleging that respondent-police are interfering with the said civil dispute at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 8, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Instructions of the learned Government Pleader, however, show that while the said civil suit filed by the petitioner is pending before the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, respondent No.5 appears to have lodged the complaint, dated 03.12.2014 against the petitioner, which is registered as Crime No.271 of 2014 on 03.12.2014 and the investigation in the said crime is stated to be pending. It is also stated that respondent police are merely concerned with maintaining law and order to keep peace and tranquility in the area and for that purpose they have visited the scene of offence. However, the allegations of interference and harassment are denied. It is also stated that respondent police are not trying to dispossess the petitioner.
4. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing respondent police to confine themselves with the investigation of the said crime No.271 of 2014 and take appropriate further steps in the matter and not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 18, 2015 LMV