IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6374 of 2008 Between: G.Surendar Reddy, S/o.G.Seshi Reddy, 37 years, Occ.Software Engineer in U.S.A., R/o.H.No.11-1-449/1, Aghapura, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintedent of Police, Mahabubnagar District, Office at Mahabubnagar. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Wanaparthy Division, Office at Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Station House Officer, Police Station, Kothakota, Mahabubnagar District. 4 Smt G.Anita Reddy, W/o.G.Surender Reddy, R/o.H.No.16-2-754/A/66 A.P.A.U Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd-60. 5 G.Eswaramma, W/o.Pratap Reddy, R/o.H.No.2-2-647/77/G/8 G-8, Sivam Road, Hyderabad. 6 G.Pratap Reddy, S/o Late Venkat Reddy, R/o.H.No.2-2-647/77/G/8 G-8, Sivam Road, Hyderabad. 7 G.Narendranath Reddy, S/o.G.Pratap Reddy, R/o.H.No.2-2-647/77/G/8 G-8, Sivam Road, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7: None Appeared The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6374 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not properly investigating the complaint filed by the petitioner, registered as crime No.23 of 2008 on the file of respondent No.3 Police Station. The petitioner and respondent No.4 are involved in matrimonial disputes. While the petitioner, who was earlier said to have been acquitted in a Criminal Case filed at the instance of his wife-respondent No.4 for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, claimed to have filed O.P.No.819 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad seeking divorce from respondent No.4. He alleged that during his absence when he was away in U.S.A., respondent No.4 purchased a baby girl from a Lambada family and insisted that the petitioner should accept her as his daughter. He averred that he filed a complaint before respondent No.3, who registered the same as crime No.23 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 370 and 371 IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has not been investigating into the crime and filing a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Having heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate for seeking directions to respondent No.3 for completing the investigation and filing report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This view of mine is fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India[1]. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 26th March 2008 RRB [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171