IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.5688 of 2009 Between: Smt. Bulle Kondamma … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, I-Town Police Station, Anantapur, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N. Aswartha Narayana Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5688 of 2009 ORDER:- In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the inaction of the respondents in acting on his complaint dated 12.03.2009, as arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, he admitted that the petitioner submitted a petition on 12.03.2009 to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Anantapur, and that the said officer endorsed the said petition for enquiry and necessary action. It is further stated that the Head Constable, who was deputed to make a preliminary enquiry, visited the area where the alleged incident took place and enquired with Smt. Jagannatham Gangamma, w/o. Venkatesu and Chilakam Hari Chandra Reddy s/o. Madhusudhan Reddy, who were residing near the disputed land. When the Head Constable, who made the enquiry, returned to the police station and when he was in the process of making entry in the general diary, the petitioner and her daughter came to the police station and alleged that they were beaten by Bulle Lakshmanna s/o. Narayanappa, Bulle Narappa s/o. Narayanappa and others with hands. When Head Constable No.1453 asked them to go to the Government hospital, Anantapur, along with the police for treatment and obtaining wound certificate, they allegedly stated that they did not receive any injuries and that they do not want any case to be registered and left the police station. It is further stated that while the Head Constable did not find any injuries on the petitioner and her daughter, his enquiry revealed that the petitioner was trying to convert the civil dispute into a criminal case with false allegations and as the police were satisfied that the complaint was false, no further action was taken. Though reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying some of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit, I am of the view that the petitioner is left with an effective remedy under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, as held by the Apex Court in Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others[1]. Therefore, without going into the respective pleas of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing a private complaint. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7434 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.07.2009 ES [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171