IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24581 of 2008 Between: Yekollu Venku Reddy S/o.Late Subba Reddy, R/o.D.No.6-15-10/1, East Point Colony, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 3 V.Radha Krishna Murthy, Occ: DGM, HPCL Refinery, Chembuja, Mumbai, presently residing at Ground Floor, D.No.6-15-10/1, East Point Colony, Chinawaltair, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not registering the case against the respondent No.3 and his men basing on a complaint dated 11.8.2008 and in not investigating the case and in not taking steps against the third respondent and his men as per law is nothing but highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24581 OF 2008 ORDER: The only grievance of the petitioner is that he lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent- Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, on 11.08.2008, against the 3rd respondent, complaining that in his absence, the 3rd respondent along with goondas came to his house and taken away all the household articles worth Rs.2,00,000/- and put his own lock to the house, but so far neither a case has been registered nor any action has been taken by the police. The petitioner also alleges that even earlier, when the 3rd respondent tried to dispossess him from his house, in respect of which civil suit is pending, he gave a report before the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, on 08.07.2008, but no action has been taken in pursuance thereof. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, while denying all the allegations in particular the allegation that the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent on 11.08.2008, it is stated that pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner, on 08.07.2008, to the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, requesting to provide protection from the antisocial elements who are trying to dispossess him from his house, the 1st respondent was directed to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit report. Thereupon, the 1st respondent conducted enquiry and it was revealed from the petitioner that he entered into an oral agreement with the 3rd respondent and has been staying in the house of the 3rd respondent bearing Door No.6-15-10/1, East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam, but the petitioner has stated that he will not vacate the house and will settle the matter in a competent Court. It is further stated that as the matter is purely a civil dispute between the owner and tenant, the petitioner was advised to seek redressal in a competent Civil Court, and no case was registered in pursuance of his representation, since no offence is made out. In view of the above counter averments, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 19th November, 2008. IBL