IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7884 of 2008 Between: Datla Narayanamurthy Raju S/o.Late Appala Narasimha Raju R/o.Vedullavalasa Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra pradesh, rep.by Station House officer Garividi Police station, Vizianagaram District 2 Gudivada Laxminaidu S/o.Late Thamminaidu R/o.Vedulavalsa Garividi Mandal Vizianagaram District 3 Gudivada Thamminaidu S/o.Laxmi Naidu R/o.Vedulavalsa Garividi Mandal Vizianagaram District 4 Gudivada Sunder Rao S/o.Laxminaidu R/o.Vedulavalsa Garividi Mandal Vizianagaram District 5 Gudivada Appala Naidu S/o.Laxminaidu R/o.Vedulavalsa Garividi Mandal Vizianagaram District 6 Gudivada Satyam Naidu S/o.Laxminaidu R/o.Vedulavalsa Garividi Mandal Vizianagaram District 7 Visinigiri Laxminaidu S/o.Suraappala Naidu R/o.Vedulavalsa Garividi Mandal Vizianagaram District 8 Nirdana Gouri S/o.Tata Naidu R/o.Vedulavalsa Garividi Mandal Vizianagaram District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed to set aside endorsement, dated 04.04.2008 made by respondent No.1. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of Ac.7.54 cents in Survey No.189/1 of Baguvalasa Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and raised a mango tope therein. He further stated that respondent No.2 filed a civil suit bearing O.S.No.39 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chipurupalli and obtained an order of injunction, which was eventually converted into one of status quo in C.R.P.No.4427 of 2007 by order, dated 29.01.2008. The petitioner alleged that taking advantage of the order of status quo in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.189/1, respondent No.2 illegally trespassed into the mango garden comprised in Survey Nos.186/7 and 189/10 and highhandedly took away 35 boxes of mangoes and that when he filed a criminal complaint on 04.04.2008, respondent No.1 made the impugned endorsement. Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The impugned endorsement, which was made by respondent No.1 shows that since the complaint pertains to a dispute of civil nature, which is pending in the civil Court, the petitioner shall approach the civil Court for redressal of his grievance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 while making the said endorsement, is under the mistaken impression that the act alleged against respondent No.2 was committed in respect of Survey No.189/1, for which, a civil suit is pending and that the land in respect of which the alleged offence is committed is not related to the land which is the subject matter of the civil suit. In my considered opinion, even if the endorsement made by respondent No.1 suffers from an error of fact, the petitioner has an effective remedy by way of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has been time and again holding that a person aggrieved by the inaction of the police in registering a complaint has an effective remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under the above mentioned provisions and that the writ petition is not a proper remedy for this purpose. (See Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India [1] ) Having regard to the above said legal position, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10379 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th APRIL, 2008 kvni [1] 2007(6) SCC 171