IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3051 of 2005 Between: Ragolu Durga Prasad S/o. Guruvulu Near China Ramalayam, 16th Ward, Chodidibba, Eluru-2, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Eluru GTown Police station, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 Sri Paila Yerraiah S/o. Late Paiditalli Near Water Tank, 16th Ward, Chodidibba, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....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 a writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents 1 & 2 to consider the Complaint/Representation of the petitioner dt. 4-10-2004 & 9-10-2004 & as per Section 154 of Cr.P.C. 1973 and take action as per Section 155, 156 & 157 of Cr.P.C. and consequently declare the inaction of respondents 1 & 2 in taking action against Respondent No.3 inspite of Letter No. ROC.No. 5426/LSA2004 of Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, A.P. High Court Buildings, A.P. Hyderabad to Respondent No.2 as being violative of Section 154,155, 156 & 157 of Cr.P.C. in the Interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3051 of 2005 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that with regard to some money transactions, the 3rd respondent came to the house of the petitioner and took his signatures forcibly and thereby, the 3rd respondent committed cognizable offence and as such, he made representations before the Superintendent of Police as well as the A.P. State Legal Services Authority and inspite of forwarding his representation by the Secretary, A.P.State Legal Services Authority to the Superintendent of Police, no action has been taken and no case has been registered against the 3rd respondent. A counter has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint whatsoever before the Station House Officer concerned with regard to return of promissory notes by the 3rd respondent or with regard to the harassment said to have been meted out by him in any of the police stations. It is further stated that the enquiries made revealed that the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is purely civil in nature and that the suits are pending vide SR.Nos.9829/2004 and 22608/2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Eluru and the Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, and as such, no case has been registered against the 3rd respondent. Whenever any written intimation has been made by the complainant alleging that cognizable offence has been committed and if no crime is registered by the concerned Station House Officer, there is an effective alternative remedy under the code of criminal procedure for filing private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned. In view of the alternative remedy and in view of the counter that no complaint has been filed or pending, I am of the opinion that no Writ of Mandamus can be issued. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 09-06-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}