WP/28081/2005 of Shaik Mustafa Saheb, Vs Superintendent of Police, on 30 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner submits that there are certain family disputes among the petitionerand the 3[rd] respondent and the son of the petitioner was married with the daughter ofthe 3[rd] respondent. It is stated that with regard to jewelry and other articles presentedat the time of the marriage certain disputes have arisen and the relationships havebeen strained. In that connection, at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent, the 2[nd]respondent is illegally interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner andthe 3[rd] respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learnedGovernment for Home.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that thepolice shall not interfere with the civil dispute unless there is an allegation of committing cognizable offence. In the absence of any complaint or report filed eitherby the 3[rd] respondent or there is any crime registered against the petitioner, the 2[nd]respondent could not interfere with the civil dispute between the parties.Accordingly, the 2[nd] respondent is directed not to interfere with the civil disputesbetween the petitioner and the unofficial respondents without their being anycomplaint alleging that the petitioner has committed cognizable offence.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

________________

(V.ESWARAIAH, J.)

30.12.2005

Note: Issue copy tomorrow

B.O.

kpr