THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.11478 of 2009 Date : 20-4-2011 Between : Manneti Venkata Subba Reddy and others .. Petitioners and Inspector of Police, Pamarru, Pamarru Circle, Krishna District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana for Smt.CH.Laxmi Chaya Counsel for respondent No.1 : Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners are stated have converted agricultural lands into house sites and in the process have allegedly converted the existing donka into a pucca road. Certain persons who allegedly encroached a part of the donka land approached the respondents with a complaint that the petitioners have illegally occupied a part of the donka and converted the same into a pucca road in order to enhance the value of their plots. A similar complaint appeared to have been sent to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission. On the basis of these complaints, respondent No.3 addressed letter dated 12-5-2009 to respondent No.2 wherein he directed immediate action against the petitioners who have formed the road unauthorizedly. As a consequence of the said letter, respondent No.2 addressed letter dated 23-5-2009 to respondent No.1 to register a criminal case against the petitioners. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients have not encroached the public road, but have only developed the existing donka by making it into a gravel road and therefore his clients are not liable for prosecution. In my opinion, the Writ Petition is premature because so far prosecution has not been launched against the petitioners. Unless respondent No.1 is satisfied upon the report submitted by respondent No.2 that it has disclosed commission of an offence, the former will not register a criminal case. In the event such a case is registered, the petitioners are entitled to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. As no offence has been registered so far, the Writ Petition is premature and the same is accordingly dismissed as such, with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in the event of registration of a criminal case. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 12-6-2009 stands vacated and WPMP No.14779/2009 is dismissed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 20-4-2011 AM