THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11606 OF 2010 Dated 31st May, 2010 Between: Golla Ramachandraiah …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 6 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.M.A.Mujeeb Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7: --- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 5, on the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No.7, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the record. There are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.7. On the report given by one Akkineni Balaramakrishnaiah allegedly at the instance of respondent No.7, Crime No.125 of 2009 was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). The petitioner alleged that at the instance of the said Balaramakrishnaiah, respondent No.7 kidnapped and assaulted him and made him sign on four cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each. The petitioner gave a report against respondent No.7 on the alleged incident, but respondent No.5 has not taken any action. On the private complaint filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chevella, respondent No.5 registered Crime No.21 of 2010 against respondent No.7 for offences under Sections 323, 364-A, 342, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. After investigation, the Police gave notice in Form No.96 to the petitioner which is assailed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner pleaded that though the evidence available in abundance suggests that respondent No.7 has committed the offence for which Crime No.21 of 2010 has been registered, respondent No.5 in collusion with respondent No.7 gave the impugned notice proposing to submit a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate reporting the case as false. In my opinion, the petitioner has not invoked proper remedy and has filed the present Writ Petition, which is wholly misconceived. Under Rule 83 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the petitioner is entitled to file a protest petition against the proposed report of the Police. If such an application is filed, the jurisdictional Magistrate will examine the same and pass appropriate orders. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the above- mentioned remedy. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14705 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 31st May, 2010 lur