IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5985 of 2008 Between: Pagidi Kistaiah … Petitioner AND Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mancherial, Adilabad District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5985 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not taking appropriate action by registering complaint dated 14.03.2008 filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’). Heard Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that civil disputes persists between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.3 and D. Pocham on the other in respect of Ac.3.20 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.259/A of Mancherial Town (Sivar). In I.A.No.617 of 2007 in O.S.No.283 of 2007 filed by the petitioner, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet, granted an order of status quo against respondent No.3 on the allegation that he was trying to dispossess the petitioner. The petitioner gave a complaint to respondent No.2 on 14.03.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of receiving the said complaint, respondent No.2 has not been taking any action to protect him, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, from respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mancherial Police Station, respondent No.2, it is stated that O.S.No.283 of 2007 filed by the petitioner against Durgam Rajesh, S/o. Durgam Posham and respondent No.3 is pending and on receipt of the complaint given by the petitioner, he made an entry in the general diary and conducted preliminary enquiry. According to respondent No.2, his preliminary enquiry reveals that the petitioner and Durgam Rajesh S/o. Durgam Posham are close family members and both of them have got agricultural lands situated adjacent to each other most of which were converted into house plots long time back and that there is a dispute between them regarding the boundaries, survey numbers and pathways. It is further stated that on 13.03.2008 when both the parties were arguing with each other at the site, the police petrol party dispersed them from the site advising them to approach a competent Court of law and on 14.03.2008 again the petitioner came up with a written petition typed in Telugu in the name of his son requesting for taking action against Durgam Rajesh and others alleging that they are trying to incite others to occupy the land. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that respondent No.2 advised the petitioner to approach the concerned Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the counter affidavit no reference is made to respondent No.3, who is neither a relative of the petitioner nor a person belonging to the Schedule Caste. He submitted that when a complaint of cognizable offence is received, it is the bounden duty of respondent No.2 to register a crime and take action. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition cannot be entertained for more reasons than one. As noted supra, there are severe civil disputes with respect to the immovable property in question and the alleged offence committed by respondent No.3 is in relation to the said property. It is admittedly a subject matter of dispute in O.S.No.283 of 2007 filed by the petitioner. In view of the order of status quo granted by the civil Court, there is evidently a scramble for possession and the petitioner made a complaint against respondent No.3 in connection thereof. In the light of the complaint of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has forcibly occupied the property, which is subject matter of the civil suit as aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in respondent No.2 in suggesting the petitioner to get his grievances redressed before the civil Court in which the civil suit is already pending. Further, even if the complaint filed by the petitioner prima facie reveals commission of a cognizable offence, the petitioner is not remediless, inasmuch as under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 he is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint if the complaint filed by him before the police is not registered. This view of mine is fortified by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India[1], Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra[2], Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar[3], Hari Singh v. State of U.P.[4], and Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others[5]. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7783 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.04.2008 ES [1] (1996) 11 SCC 582 [2] (2004) 7 SCC 768 [3] (2006) 4 SCC 359 [4] (2006) 5 SCC 733 [5] (2007) 6 SCC 171