IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8468 of 2008 Between: Kandi Laxmi W/o.P.Sukumar D/o.Late K.Diabba Reddy, Hindu R/o.4-63,Tamma Cheruvu Katta Manthani(V) &(M) Karimnagar Dist ..... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer Mandhani Police Station Mandhani Karimnagar Dist .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not acting on the complaint filed by the petitioner against her brothers and not providing security to her and her husband as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that she married one P.Sukumar against the will of her family members on 04.04.2008. Apprehending threat from her three brothers, the petitioner claimed to have filed a complaint on 10.04.2008 before the respondent to provide protection to her and her husband. The grievance of the petitioner is that having received the said complaint, no action has been taken by the respondent so far. Having heard Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition cannot be entertained in view of availability of an effective remedy to the petitioner under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. I n Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India[1], the Supreme Court held as under: “Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence, which is cognizable one, there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ union (Regd.) v. Union of India ((1996) 11 SCC 582)) and reiterated in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharasthra ((2004) 7 SCC 768)) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh v. State of U.P. ((2006) 5 SCC 733), Minnu Kumari v. State of Bihar ((2006) 4 SCC 359)) and Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2006)) 2 SCC 677)), we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari case the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted, which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Minu Kumari case and Hari Singh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar ((2006) 12 SCC 229)). The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case and Minu Kumari case. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code.” On the above premise, the Supreme Court gave the following directions: “1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed. 2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, as referred to supra, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11201 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th APRIL, 2008 kvni [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171