PRATIPATI NARASIMHA RAO Vs. SHO., KRISHNA DIST.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that he filed suit in O.S.No.84 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, against the 4th respondent herein, in respect of the subject property, for a permanent injunction. Though the trial court granted ad interim injunction, the 1st respondent - Station House Officer, Kanchikacherla Police Station, in collusion with fourth respondent summoned the petitioner to the police station; threatened the petitioner to withdraw the suit and handover possession of the property to the 4th respondent. Alleging interference by police official in civil dispute, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(2.) Though various grounds are raised, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer, in seeking a direction to the respondent police not to call the petitioner to the police station, without following due process of law.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, while denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submitted that the 1st respondent never called the petitioner to the police station and that any action sought to be taken, will only be in accordance with law.