THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 2290 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner states that he has filed a private complaint against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, stating that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 committed theft of valuable property and also taken away his son. The same having been referred by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., respondent No.1, namely the Station House Oficer, Tukaram Gate Police Station, Secunderabad, a crime in Crime No. 11 of 2010 was registered against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 504 r/w 32 IPC. Now it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.1 having registered the crime is not investigating and not taking further action in the matter. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for appropriate directions to respondent No. 1 to take action against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 pursuant to registration of the crime against them. Responding to the notice ordered by this Court, respondent No.1 filed counter stating that upon the private complaint filed by the petitioner being referred to him by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, he registered the same as Crime No. 11 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and took up investigation. That during the course of investigation, it came to light that there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.6, respondent No. 2 is the brother-in-law, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are in-laws and respondent No.5 is sister-in-law of the petitioner. Earlier respondent No.6 filed dowry harassment case against the petitioner, and that though she applied for divorce, subsequently she reconciled and started living with the petitioner at Shirdi Sai Apartments, East Marredpally, and that they resided there from April, 2009 to 11.01.2010. That he had examined and recorded the statement of the petitioner as L.W.1 and other witnesses as L.Ws. 2 to 6, who are living in the said apartment. That L.Ws. 2 to 6 had given statements stating that the petitioner and respondent No.6 resided and that they are not aware of the theft of cash and gold having taken place. He further found that the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 are purely civil in nature, and that the property, alleged to have been taken away by his wife, is in the joint custody and that the allegation of theft made by the petitioner against his wife is not correct. Insofar as taking away of the minor son by his wife is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has to approach Court of law for custody of child. It is further stated in the counter that since the dispute is civil in nature, he had sent proposals to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gopalapuram Division on 20.04.2010 to accord permission to refer the case as “civil nature”, and that after obtaining permission, he will refer the case as “civil nature” to the Magistrate concerned. In view of the above, and if upon obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gopalapuram Division, respondent No.1 refers the case as “civil nature” to the Magistrate concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to file his objections to the same before the Magistrate concerned, who shall consider the same, before acting on the report to be filed by respondent No.1. Granting liberty to the petitioner as indicated above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 1st July, 2010 KSR