IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 18692 of 2008 Between: Maddi Sarath Babu S/o. Late M. Lakshmikantha Rao R/o.5-66-5/1/2, Brodipet, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat at Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Government of A.P., Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur. 4 The Station House Officer, Nagaram Palem P.S., Guntur. 5 Kongala Seshu S/o. K. Venkateswarlu R/o. D.No.25-12-17, 1st Cross Road, 7th Line, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in calling the petitioner to the Police Station without registering any case and forcing the petitioner to settle the matter with the 5th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with civil nature litigation as per the alleged breach of agreement of sale and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.JAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO :18692 of 2008 ORDER: From the averments in the writ petition, it is not clear why the petitioner has impleaded Respondents 1 to 3, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary to Government; the Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Superintendent of Police, Guntur. The petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent alleging that the 5th respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner with regard to some disputes about properties; alleging a forged agreement of sale at the instance of the 5th respondent and further asserting that the 5th respondent is trying to implicate the petitioner in a false criminal case and requesting the 3rd respondent not to register any complaint, if lodged by the 5th respondent. This writ petition is ﬁled alleging that the 4th respondent at the instance of the 5th respondent is harassing the petitioner. The petitioner has not made any complaint whatsoever to the 3rd respondent or the respondents 1 and 2, with regard to the alleged unlawful conduct of the 4th respondent. The petitioner has a right to represent to the higher oﬃcials in the police department regarding any unlawful conduct of a police oﬃcer. On such a complaint being made, if the complaint contains precise particulars, the higher oﬃcials in the hierarchy of the police department, including the 3rd respondent, are obligated in law to issue a notice to the police oﬃcer described in such complaint, call for an explanation and if there be any substance in the complaint of the petitioner, must initiate proper disciplinary proceedings apart from taking all steps in the plenitude of State’s sovereign power, to prohibit the abuse of lawful authority by a public oﬃcer. The petitioner ought to have approached the 3rd respondent for such a relief. The petitioner’s representation to the 3rd respondent dated 31.7.2008, contains no scintilla of a complaint against the 4th respondent, yet he has chosen to implead the respondents 1 to 3, to this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to represent to the 3rd respondent, if he so desires, as to any unlawful conduct by the 4th respondent. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 28th August, 2008 Pnb