THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.15046 OF 2009 Date: 24.09.2009 Between:- G.Srinivasa Murthy .. Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents/Police, more particularly respondents 2 and 3, in not registering the report dated 07.07.2009, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also is in transgression of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. and consequently direct the respondent authorities to register an FIR, in accordance with law. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is 70 years old and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing Door No.184 and 185 of Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. One Mr. Anna Ramachandraiah, who is a Tailor by profession, became close to him and taking advantage of his loneliness, made him to believe that he would support and provide care and attention, started intermeddling with his properties and made the tenants to vacate from the said premises. The said Anna Ramachandraiah, by threatening the petitioner with dire consequences, made him to execute a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in respect of the said property. After extorting the said document, Anna Ramachandraiah started pressurizing the petitioner to vacate the premises. When the petitioner pleaded with the said Anna Ramachandraiah that the said act is totally illegal, he manhandled and thrashed the petitioner. On 07.06.2009, the said Anna Ramachandraiah, when the petitioner was in the house bearing No.185 at about 8.00 a.m., attacked brutally and even tried to strangle the petitioner by pressing the throat for which, the petitioner fainted. However, after regained the consciousness, the said Anna Ramachandraiah and his associates threatened the petitioner with dire consequences to leave the Tirupathi and he left the Tirupathi. Thereafter, the petitioner sent an express report dated 07.07.2009 to the 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, marking copies to the respondents 1 and 2, requesting them to take cognizance of the above facts and initiate appropriate action against the said Anna Ramachandraiah and his associates and protect his property and life. The respondents did not take any action on the said express report. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, Sub-Inspector of Police, inter alia, stated that on receipt of the report of the petitioner discreet enquiry was conducted and found that on 07.06.2009 no such incident was took place as stated by the petitioner in his report. Further, it is also narrated how the said Anna Ramachandraiah got interest in the said property. Eventually, it is submitted that after enquiry, it is revealed that the said Anna Ramachandraiah and others did not assault or threatened the petitioner and there is no evidence to prove the same and came to the conclusion that the petitioner submitted the alleged report with a view to falsely implicate the said Anna Ramachandraiah in criminal case. In view of the above circumstances, no case is registered on the report of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner, in the instant writ petition, is that on 07.06.2009, Anna Ramachandraiah and others threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and narrating the same, he sent an express report to the respondents and the respondents have not registered any case on the said report for which, the learned Government Pleader submitted that on receipt of the said report, discreet enquiry was conducted and found that no such incident was occurred on the particular day as narrated by the petitioner in his report and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had tried to falsely implicate the said Anna Ramachandraiah in a criminal case. Therefore, no case was registered. Prima facie, from the above, it appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and Anna Ramachandraiah in respect of the property mentioned hereinabove, which is civil in nature and on enquiry, the respondent authorities have come to the conclusion that no such incident was taken place, as stated by the petitioner in his report. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have not acted on the report of the petitioner since the respondent authorities have enquired into the matter and have come to a conclusion. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I do not see any reason to find fault with the respondent authorities and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, with the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed, at the threshold. There shall be no order as to cots. ___________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 24th September, 2009 AMD