THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6312 OF 2010 Dated 19th March, 2010 Between: S.Chandra Sekhar …Petitioner And The District Collector and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondents 3 to 5: G.P.for Forests The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 to 5 in harassing the petitioner by filing false cases against him as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to hold enquiry against respondents 3 to 5 for illegally registering cases against him without holding a prior enquiry and to direct respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with his personal life and liberty. I have heard Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner admitted in his affidavit that there are as many as three cases registered against him and another person by name S.Rajesh Kanna under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. According to the petitioner, he is innocent and respondents 3 to 5 falsely implicated him in the said criminal cases. The petitioner further pleaded that before registering cases against him, the said respondents have not held any enquiry. The petitioner, therefore, sought for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to cause an enquiry into the registration of cases against him by respondents 3 to 5. In my opinion, the prayer made in this writ petition has no legal basis. Being an accused, the petitioner is liable to face prosecution. If he feels that the accusations against him do not constitute an offence, he is entitled to avail appropriate remedy in respect of each of these cases. The grievance of the petitioner that no prior enquiry was made before registering the cases against him does not posit any legal basis. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such a prior enquiry before registering the criminal cases is not envisaged. The further prayer to direct respondents 1 and 2 to enquire into registration of cases by respondents 3 to 5 is equally misplaced as the petitioner failed to place reliance on any legal provision warranting such an enquiry. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is without any merit and substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.8138 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th March, 2010 vrn