HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

W.P.NO. 17344 OF 2006

DATED: 30.8.2006

Between: Md. Hasham Qureshi

… Petitioner

and

The Station House Officer, Madannapet P.S., Saidabad, Hyderabad and others

… Respondents

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

W.P.NO.17344 OF 2006

ORAL ORDER:

The writ petition is filed on a grievance that the respondents 1 and 2 are not taking any action on the unofficial respondents i.e. 3 to 6 nor preventing them from harming the petitioner's life and property.

The petitioner alleges harassment by the respondents 1 and 2 in respect of property in Sy.Nos.45 and 60, Madannapet, Hyderabad, of which the petitioner claims to be a GPA holder and asserts that there are disputes in respect of the said property between him and Indira Seva Sadan. On 16.10.1996, FIR No.74 of 1996 was registered against the petitioner, alleging offences under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code

in which he was remanded to judicial custody and thereafter released on bail on 19.10.1996. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police, Madannapet Police Station, vide Cr.No.83 of 1996. The case was however closed for lack of evidence and a final report filed before the concerned court to that effect. The petitioner also alleges that the respondents 3 to 6 have been harassing him with a view to grab the property and he expects threat to his life from the unofficial respondents. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere in civil disputes. The petitioner asserts to have represented to respondents 1 and 2 to provide him protection, which was not responded to, is the complaint.

Responding to the allegations in the writ petition, the 1 st respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying that any complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents 3 to 6 and asserting that the petitioner never approached the respondent-police station. It is also asserted that prima facie the disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents appear to be civil in nature. The counter affidavit further states that if the petitioner approaches the respondent-police station and lodges a complaint, appropriate action would be taken.

In view of the averments in the counter affidavit, which are not

denied, no cause for further processing of this writ petition exists. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

-------------------------------

GODA RAGHURAM, J

Date: 30.8.2006 cvm