PYLA ANAND RAO Vs. TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.523/2013/A dated 10.07.2013 of respondent No.1, based on which respondent No.3 has registered F.I.R.No.314/2013 dated 13.07.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(2.) The petitioners are the owners of plot Nos.4 and 5 admeasuring 249.6 sq. yards and 247.27 sq. yards respectively in survey No.176/13 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal and District. The petitioners obtained building permission from the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation on 11.04.2011 and constructed an apartment building with stilt, ground and three upper floors. When respondent No.5 sought to remove the eastern boundary wall, the petitioners filed O.S.No.1032 of 2013 in the Court of 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. When the said suit was pending, respondent No.5 gave report dated 18.05.2013 to respondent No.3 alleging that the petitioners have been encroaching upon his plot bearing No.6 on the western side and raising a compound wall. Respondent No.1 thereafter submitted the impugned report/letter on 10.07.2013 to respondent No.3 and based on the said report, the latter registered F.I.R.No.314/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The petitioners have questioned the action of respondent No.1 sending the report behind their back and registration of criminal case based on the said report by respondent No.3.

(3.) This Court, on 21.08.2013, while ordering notice to respondent No.5 prima facie opined that when a civil suit is pending and an order of injunction was granted by the civil Court against respondent No.5, respondent No.1 ought not to have interfered in civil dispute and addressed the impugned letter dated 10.07.2013 to respondent No.3. Therefore, respondent No.1 was directed to file his counter-affidavit and be personally present before the Court to explain as to under which provision of law he has addressed the letter dated 10.07.2013 to respondent No.3.