THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20876 of 2007 Date: 19.04.2008 Between: A.P.Rao … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Prl.Secretary, Home, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.S.Anand Counsel for the respondents : A.G.P. for Home HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20876 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents police to register complaints dated 2.1.2007 and 31.3.2007. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition show that there are property disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5, and respondent No.5 allegedly grabbed and occupied 10 cents of land in survey No.194/8 and got the same registered under a registered document. It is further alleged that respondent No.5 encroached upon 2 ½ acres of land and that when the petitioner tried to resist the said attempts of respondent No.5, he accused the petitioner by using the caste name. The petitioner claimed to have lodged complaint on 2.1.2007 with respondent No.4 under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further stated that on 9.5.2007, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to enquire into the allegation of excavation of fish pond in Pedda Lingala village by respondent No.5 on 31.3.2007 without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the adjacent neighbours. The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the alleged inaction of respondent No.4 in registering criminal cases on the complaints made by him. Having carefully considered the averments in the affidavit and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable. In Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India And Others[1] the Supreme Court held as under: “ Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a 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 Vs. Union of India ((1996) 11 SCC 582) and reiterated in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. 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 Vs. State of U.P. ((2006) 5 SCC 733), Minu Kumari Vs. State of Bihar ((2006) 4 SCC 359) and Ramesh Kumari Vs. 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, Gangdhar case, Minu Kumari case, and Hari Singh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case was reiterated in Lallan Choudhary Vs. 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 of 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. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24.2.2003 with WP (C) No.530 of 2002 and WP (C) No.221 of 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were de-linked from the aforesaid writ petitions. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with 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. (3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. The Government concerned would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order. (4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” In view of the ratio contained in the above re-produced judgment of the Supreme Court, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27070 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:19.04.2008 mdaa [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171