IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.38894 of 2014 BETWEEN Tanikonda Chiranjeevi.
... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. SHASHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition was moved by way of lunch motion yesterday complaining that the respondent police have highhandedly locked the office premises of the petitioner at Flat No.101 of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Apartments at premises bearing D.No.32-12-4, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada City.
2. Petitioner states that the aforesaid flat admeasuring 2450 sq.feet is used for office purpose and alleging that the police officers of respondent No.7 police station as well as the Circle Inspector of Police have forcibly dispossessed the petitioner and locked the aforesaid flat, the present writ petition is filed. It is also alleged that the respondent police are interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and his vendors.
3. Petitioner claims that under an agreement of sale dated 10.10.2014 he has purchased the said flat from his vendors, one of whom is respondent No.8. Petitioner states as per the said agreement of sale the total sale consideration of the flat is Rs.55,00,000/- and that he had already paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and remaining balance of Rs.25,00,000/- is payable within 90 days. Petitioner also states that he has filed a suit, O.S.No.547 of 2014, for specific performance before the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, on 16.12.2014 and the trial Court has ordered urgent notice in the matter. A copy of the same is also produced. Petitioner states that he has also filed PIL.No.304 of 2014 against the respondents and on account of interim order therein, police have taken vindictive action against him.
4. In view of the said specific allegation of petitioner of locking of premises, learned Assistant Government Pleader was required to get instructions urgently.
5. On the basis of instructions received, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the police never locked the said flat and that two complaints were received against the petitioner from respondent Nos.9 and 8, which are registered as Cr.Nos.850 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 506 of the Indian Penal code and Cr.No.867 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 452, 354, 195-A, 506 read with 34 IPC respectively on the file of Machavaram Police Station. It is further stated that on 12.12.2014 when the officers of respondent No.7 police station visited the flat, they found the said flat locked and on enquiry, it was found that the son of respondent No.8 by name Prahalad has locked the flat. On the date of instructions i.e. 18.12.2014, it is reported that the flat was found opened as per the certificate of the Village Revenue Officer, Vijayawada dated 17.12.2014 and photographs showing the vacant flat are also produced before this Court.
6. It is also stated that the petitioner is already facing trial in C.C.No.182 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama and also filed PIL.No.304 of 2014 making false allegations and the allegations of harassment is denied.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the agreement of sale together with its English translation. Though the agreement of sale does not show delivery of possession on the date of agreement, subsequent receipts dated 18.10.2014 show that out of the remaining balance of Rs.25,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- was paid under two separate cheques and receipt of the said cheques is acknowledged by the vendors and the receipt itself records that possession of the flat is delivered to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, supports the claim of the petitioner with regard to the possession of the property on the basis of the aforesaid documents.
8. Undoubtedly, all the said documents are subject matter of adjudication before the competent court in the suit, referred to above. Since the civil dispute is also pending, the role of respondent No.7 and its officers has necessarily to be confined to the criminal cases registered, being Cr.Nos.850 and 867 of 2014. So far as civil rights between the petitioner and his vendors is concerned, the civil Court would adjudicate on the civil rights in due course and till then, interference with the civil rights of the petitioner and his vendors by the police is not called for except to the extent of investigating the crimes registered against the petitioner and take appropriate action, in the matter, accordingly.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 18, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 19.12.2014. (B/o) DSK