IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4865 of 2008 Between: D. Prabhakar Rao S/o. D. Surya Rao R/o. Mehar Nagar, Shanthi Nagar Road, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police Karimnagar Town & District. 2 The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sircilla Town, Karimnagar district. 3 The Inspector of Police, Sircilla Police Station, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4865 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representations dated 13.10.2007 and 28.12.2007, as illegal and to direct the respondents to investigate into the case and register a criminal case against the persons, whose names are mentioned in the abovementioned representations. Heard Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner alleged that on 09.11.2006 he was attacked by a rival union in Siricilla Town and he was paraded naked in the streets, that based on a complaint given by him, respondent No.3 registered crime No.431/2006 and since no arrest was made, he filed WP.No.26396 of 2006, which came to be disposed of on 20.12.2006 with a direction to the respondents to take expeditious action for completion of investigation into the crime. The petitioner’s grievance is that at the time of his complaint, he was unable to give the names of all those persons, who are involved in the offence as he was in a state of shock and later on, he was able to recollect that in addition to those persons against whom the complaint was registered, 18 more persons were involved in the offence and that he made representations on 13.10.2007 and 28.12.2007 to the respondents to prosecute the said 18 persons also and that no action is being taken by the respondents so far. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds, namely: 1. that 18 persons, who are allegedly involved in the crime and against whom the petitioner is seeking prosecution, are not made parties to this writ petition. Therefore, no directions, which would result in adverse consequences to the said persons, can be granted by this Court, and 2. if the respondents have not taken any action against the complaint given by the petitioner against the said 18 persons under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has got a remedy of filing a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others[1] 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 Maharashtra ((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), Minu 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. I n 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 Chaudhari 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 modilities 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 aforementioned provisions.” In view of the above re-produced dicta of the Supreme Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.6314 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.03.2008 ES [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171