Disposed

A.Balakishan v. State of A.P and 3 Others

Telangana HC1 Jul 2010WP/28131/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions challenging police interference in a civil property dispute. The court held that the police were not liable for investigating pending criminal cases and may continue investigation beyond the existence of a civil suit, subject to court orders on interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of. Interim orders vacated. Pendencies of civil suit proceeds in civil court.

A.Balakishan Vs State of A.P and 3 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition Nos.22246 & 28131 of 2009

¶3

st Dated 1 July, 2010

¶4

WP.No.22246 of 2009 Between: Andhe Srisailam …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police and 5 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Laxman Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr.M.V.S.Suresh Kumar WP.No.28131 of 2009 Between: A.Balkishan …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M.V.S.Suresh Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Home

¶5

Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr.K.Lakshman Rao

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

Common Order:

¶8

When W.P.No.22246 of 2009 is taken up for admission and hearing, the learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that a related Writ Petition viz., W.P.No.28131 of 2009 also raised similar issues. Therefore, this Court has summoned the said Writ Petition as well. Both the Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order.

¶9

For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in W.P.No.22246 of 2009.

¶10

Respondent No.6 is the original owner of Plot No.2 admeasuring 361 square yards situated at Golnaka, Amberpet, Hyderabad. The petitioner, who is the neighbour of respondent No.6, has set up title in himself on the basis of two receipts said to have been executed by respondent No.6 on

¶11

11-12-1977 and 26-01-1978. The petitioner in W.P.No.28131 of 2009 claims right over the same property on the basis of a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA said to have been executed by respondent No.6. The petitioner herein filed OS.No.589 of 2009 in the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of his title and perpetual injunction against respondent No.6. Along with the suit, he filed IA.No.3550 of 2009 seeking ad interim

¶12

injunction. Initially, an order of status quo was granted and later, the IA itself was dismissed. However, the suit is pending.

¶13

The petitioner and respondent No.6 represented by her GPA, who filed WP.No.28131 of 2009, have common grievance against Police interference in civil disputes between them.

¶14

At the hearing, it has come out that on being approached by respondent No.6 through her GPA, respondent Nos.4 and 5 registered two criminal cases viz., Crime Nos.284 and 246 of 2009 against the petitioner and the same are pending investigation. No counter-affidavits have been filed by the Police in either of the two Writ Petitions.

¶15

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home reported to the Court that except registration of the abovesaid two Crimes and holding investigation therein, the Police have not been interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.6 and the persons claiming through her on the other side.

¶16

In the light of this submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this Court is not inclined to probe the issue further leaving the parties to litigate for their rights over the property in dispute in the pending suit. As held out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Police should not interfere in the civil disputes pending between the parties unless such interference is warranted by an order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. However, this order will not preclude the Police from investigating the pending criminal cases and taking action in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, interim orders, dated 15-10-2009 and 29-12-2009 in WP.Nos.22246 and 28131 of 2009 respectively are vacated and WPMP.Nos.28903 & 36637 of 2009 in WP.Nos.22246 & 28131 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶20

Dated 1^st July, 2010 lur

A.Balakishan v. State of A.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Balakishan v. State of A.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Ramulu, Vs The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C.

Mohd. Gouse, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

B. Venkateswara Reddy, Vs The Regional Director

Kanchanapalli Lalitha, Vs I/C Police Transport Organisation, Hyderabad. A.P.

Dummani Chena Kesaiah , Uppa Kesaiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police

Kothuri Deva Mozes Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandivada P.S.