JUDGMENT T. Vinod Kumar, J. - The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents, in particular 3rd respondent-Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad and their subordinates in interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their house property bearing House No.1-58/3/29/5 (old House No.1-29/5) in Survey No.229/1 admeasuring 300 square yards consisting of four rooms, which includes commercial mulgi situated at Madinaguda village of Serilingampally Municipality and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and threatening to vacate and deliver the possession of the said house property to the respondents 4 and 5 under the guise of pending criminal case, vide Crime No.571 of 2020, dated 27.06.2020, in spite of the compliance of notice issued under Section 91/160 of Cr.P.C., dated 28.06.2019 by the petitioners, as being highly illegal, arbitrary, bad, without jurisdiction and violation of Articles of the Constitution of India, with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent and their subordinates not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the above said house property. 2. The above case is taken up for hearing today i.e., 15.07.2020, through Video Conferencing. 3. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the writ averments submits that the petitioners had purchased property admeasuring 300 square yards along with four rooms constructed therein, vide registered document dated 03.09.1982 from its vendors and thereafter has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house property. It is also submitted that a part of the said property has been leased/rented out by the petitioners to various parties from time to time and is receiving rents there against. While that being so, the respondents 4 & 5 claiming to be the owners of land in plot No.9 admeasuring 300 square yards with a room constructed therein bearing house No.1- 58/3/9/A had filed a suit in O.S.No.87 of 1999 before the competent Civil Court and obtained permanent injunction against the first petitioner and others on 21.07.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are contesting the above said matter before the civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are contesting the above said matter before the civil Court. While the civil dispute is pending, the unofficial respondents appear to have approached the 3rd respondent and lodged a complaint, whereupon the 3rd respondent has registered a case against the petitioners and in the name of investigating into the above case, the 3rd respondent authority is interfering in the civil dispute and coercing the petitioners to handover the above said property in favour of the unofficial respondents and hence, the present writ petition. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has forwarded to this Court by e-mail Written Instructions dated 09.07.2020 under the signature of Sub-Inspector of Police, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. By the said written instructions, it is stated that on 27.06.2020 one K. Satyanarayana Reddy, who is the 4th respondent in the present writ petition, gave a complaint stating that his wife-Smt. K.Renuka Reddy, who is the 5th respondent herein, purchased plot Nos.8 and 9-part in Survey Nos.228 and 229/1, vide registered document No.6118 of 1992 and out of the above sold Plot No.8 to Smt. Swarnalatha and retained balance of Plot No.9 part admeasuring 300 square yards. Thereafter, a room was constructed therein by obtaining municipal permission, vide No.22915, dated 10.03.1999, and upon completion of construction a door number bearing No.1-58/3/9/A was allotted and that one person by name Baji Rao came to the site and disturbed, upon which, the unofficial respondents approached the concerned civil Court and obtained permanent injunction not to interfere with by filing O.S.No.87 of 1999 dated 21.07.2005. Now once again the said Baji Rao and another person by name Suresh came to the site on 26.06.2020 and disturbed the unofficial respondents, as such requested to take necessary action. 6. By the said written instructions, it is stated that on receiving the above complaint, the 3rd respondent authority registered a case, vide Crime No.571 of 2020 of Miyapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. on 27.06.2020 wherein petitioners are arrayed as accused No.1 & 2. It is also stated that during the course of investigation, notice under Section 91/160 of Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioners on 28.06.2020 with a request to submit relevant documents in respect of the case. 7. It is also stated that during the course of investigation, notice under Section 91/160 of Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioners on 28.06.2020 with a request to submit relevant documents in respect of the case. 7. In so far as the allegation made by the petitioners in the writ petition with regard to the 3rd respondent and his subordinates acting under the influence of respondents 4 & 5, regularly visiting the petitioners' house property, threatening them and their tenants to vacate the house premises and deliver the possession of the same to the respondents 4 & 5, by the said written instructions it is specifically stated that the said claim made is false and denied. 8. By the aforesaid written instructions, it is further stated that the 3rd respondent and his sub-ordinates are not influenced by respondents 4 & 5 or any individuals and the 3rd respondent never threatened the petitioners and their tenants to vacate the house property and are causing investigation into the crime registered, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. It is further stated that for the purpose of doing investigation into the case, the 3rd respondent visited the scene of offence, but did not interfere in the property dispute of the petitioners at any point of time. It is also stated that keeping in view of the above case registered and being investigated by the 3rd respondent authority, the petitioners had come up with the present writ petition to bring pressure on the respondent police officials and to divert them from investigating into the case. 9. Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking note of the specific assertion made on behalf of the 3rd respondent authority that except investigating into the crime registered on the complaint made by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent authority and his subordinates are not interfering in the civil dispute of the petitioners with the unofficial respondents nor threatened the petitioners or their tenants to vacate the house premises and to hand over the same to the respondents 4 & 5, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition, except observing that the respondent police shall conduct investigation into the above case registered, vide Crime No.571 of 2020 of Miyapur Police Station, strictly in accordance with law. 10. Subject to the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 10. Subject to the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.