Telangana High Court
WP/27877/2005 of Malan Bee Vs The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 27877 of 2005 Dated: 28-12-2005 Between Malan Bee, W/o. Mohammad Ajaz Ahmed, R/o. 1-15, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. …PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and others. …RESPONDENTS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No. 27877 of 2005
Dated: 28-12-2005
Between
Malan Bee, W/o. Mohammad Ajaz Ahmed,
R/o. 1-15, Nanakramguda Village,
Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.
…PETITIONER
AND
The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad
and others.
…RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Seeking a Mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere in civil dispute pending inO.S.No.353 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabadin respect of petitioner’s property bearing Survey No.105 admeasuring 3 acres and SurveyNo.107 admeasuring 1 acre, total admeasuring 4 acres situated at Nanakramguda Village,Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District and harassing the petitioner to withdraw the suit, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.
Learned counsel fro the petitioner submits that petitioner is the joint owner and possessor ofthe abovementioned property and the sisters of the petitioner have also got share in the saidproperty.
The learned counsel further submits that when the co-owner of the petitioner tried to depriveher of her share, she was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.353 of 2005 on the file of the IIIAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in which an interim injunction wasgranted in I.A.No.2556 of 2005 and the parties to the suit were directed to maintain statusquo in I.A.No.2557 of 2005 by order dated 26.10.2005. The learned counsel further submitsthat the respondents in the suit in collusion with respondents 3 and 4 herein are trying todispossess the petitioner from the suit property and the second respondent in order to helpthe respondents 3 and 4 is illegally interfering with the civil disputes in respect of theproperty in question.
I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits as to whether the petitioner is inpossession of the property in question or any other person is in possession of the saidproperty, as the matter is to be decided by the Civil court. Unless the said respondents inthe suit or any other person files any report/complaint, alleging that the petitioner hascommitted a cognizance offence, the police cannot interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioner. However, if there is any report/complaint filed against the petitioner, and thecontents of the said complaint/report made out prima facie cognizable offence, it is always open for the police to register a case and investigate into, in accordance withlaw. Therefore, the second respondent is directed not to interfere with the civil disputes inrespect of the property in question except otherwise in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
December 28, 2005
Note: Furnish C.C of the order in three days (B/O)
DSK
______________
V. ESWARAIAH, J