NO WRIT IF POLICE FAILED TO REGISTER A CASE = In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, the Writ Petition is not maintainable, questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the crime against the petitioner. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and file a private complaint against the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 .

NO WRIT IF POLICE FAILED TO REGISTER A CASE = In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, the Writ Petition is not maintainable, questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the crime against the petitioner. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and file a private complaint against the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 .

AP HIGH COURT

Main Number	WP 13946/2020	SR Number	WPSR 17239/2020
Petitioner	Ommi Satya Devi	Respondent	The State of Andhra Pradesh
Petitioner Advocate	CH B R P SEKHAR	Respondent Advocate	GP FOR HOME

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.13946 OF 2020
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to declare the action of respondents in not providing police
protection to petitioner inspite of her representation dated
03.07.2020, as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondent
authorities to provide protection to her life and also provide police
aid to construct her house in plot bearing No.940 situated in
Sy.No.285, 286 and 287 of Gollapalli Village, Bobbili Mandal,
Vizianagaram District.
2. Though the petitioner made several allegations questioning
the inaction of the respondent-police despite lodging of complaint
dated 03-07-2020 and on subsequent dates about the alleged
interference with the property of petitioner by the private
respondents 5 to 7, it is clear from the material on record that the
respondents 5 to 7 are making attempts to interfere with the
possession and enjoyment of the property of this petitioner during
night time and the petitioner raised walls upto basement level and
respondents threatened to kill her, if she completes construction
work. The alleged threat to kill petitioner would attract a
cognizable offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. But the police did not register any crime,
despite disclosing the factum of commission of cognizable offence
in the complaint itself. Thus, the respondent No.4 failed to
discharge his public duty.
2
3. In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and
another Vs. S. Janaki and another (Criminal Appeal No.102 of
2011 dated 20-03-2020), the Writ Petition is not maintainable,
questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the
crime against the petitioner.
4. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is to follow
the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and file a private complaint against the unofficial
respondents 5 to 7 and this Court cannot issue a direction by way
of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India in
view of law laid down in M.Subramaniam’s case (referred supra).
Hence, the petitioner is permitted to follow the procedure
prescribed under law and lodge appropriate private complaint
before the jurisdictional Magistrate, while dismissing the petition,
at the stage of admission itself, in view of law laid down by this
Court in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch dated 30-07-2020.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this writ petition,
shall stand closed.
 _________________________________________
 JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date : 24-08-2020
ARR

3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.13946 OF 2020
Date : 24-08-2020
ARR 

POLICE INTERFERENCE IN CIVIL MATTER = it is crystal clear that the respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder B. Bhujangarao in the civil disputes that are pending between them. Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be stated that settlement of civil disputes is not the cup of tea of the Police.

POLICE INTERFERENCE IN CIVIL MATTER = it is crystal clear that the respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder B. Bhujangarao in the civil disputes that are pending between them. Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be stated that settlement of civil disputes is not the cup of tea of the Police.

AP HIGH COURT

Main Number	WP 13227/2020	SR Number	WPSR 16484/2020
Petitioner	T. Chinnaswamy	Respondent	The State of Andhra Pradesh
Petitioner Advocate	JADA SRAVAN KUMAR	Respondent Advocate	GP FOR HOME

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.13227 OF 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner prays for writ of Mandamus declaring the action
of 3rd and 4th respondents in their unauthorized interference over the
construction of the petitioner’s building in Plot No.26, 9, 10 Mourya
Nagar, Kalyanadurgam Road, Ananthapuram District as illegal,
arbitrary, violative and for a consequential direction restraining them
from interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and his
builder B. Bhujangarao, Managing Partner.
2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus. The petitioner is a
retired Principal and after his retirement he proposed to construct a
building at his native place and for this purpose he engaged services
of B. Bhujangarao, the Managing Partner and Consulting Engineer,
O/o. Lakshmi Constructions, Ananthapuram for construction of a
house and both of them entered into an agreement of construction
wherein specific time was stipulated for completion of construction.
(a) It is his further case that in spite of lapse of the stipulated
time, the builder intentionally delayed the completion of house
construction on one or other pretext. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
paid the total amount as agreed, but however, the builder with an
ulterior motive demanded more money and started creating troubles.
He also created obstructions in completion of the construction. On
26.06.2020 the builder and his wife came along with their henchmen
and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and abused him
in filthy language in touching his caste.
2
 (b) Aggrieved, the petitioner lodged a report with the 3rd
respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police and the same is
registered as Crime No.181 of 2020 dated 04.06.2020 on the file of
Ananthapuram Police Station for the offences under Sections 420, 506
of IPC and Secs.3(1) (s), 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA), 1989. Except
registering the FIR, the Police have not advanced the investigation.
Even after the registration of FIR, the accused used to threaten him
with dire consequences. Added to it, to his dismay 3rd and
4
th respondents instead of proceedings with the investigation in
respect of his complaint, often visiting the construction site and
openly warning the petitioner that unless he settles the case with the
builder he shall not commence the construction works.
 Hence, the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned
Asst. Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1
to 4 and later denied the writ petition allegations and argued that the
respondent Police have not forced the petitioner to settle his civil
disputes with his builder.
5. As can be seen from the facts, it is crystal clear that the
respondents, on the complaint of the petitioner, registered Crime
No.181 of 2020 which they are obligated to investigate in accordance
with law. Except that, they have no business to either persuade or
force the petitioner to enter into the settlement with his builder
B. Bhujangarao in the civil disputes that are pending between them.
3
Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be stated that settlement of civil
disputes is not the cup of tea of the Police.
6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to proceed with the investigation in
respect of the Crime No.181 of 2020 in accordance with law
expeditiously and at the same time without applying persuasion or
coercion to the petitioner to settle his civil disputes with his builder or
others. No costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any pending for
consideration, shall stand closed.

 ___________________________
 U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
24.08.2020
MS