IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19142 of 2008 Between: Syed Sharfuddin S/o. Syed Anwar Hussain R/o. H.No. 2-1/1, Old Hafeezpet (V), Serilingampally (M), R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Cyberabad Commissionarate, Rep. by Commissioner of Police, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad. 2 SHO, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 3 Venkata Raju R/o. Near Bharat Petrol Pump, Old Hafeezpet, Seri Lingampally (M), R.R.Distirct. 4 Satyam, R/o. Near Bharat Petrol Pump, Old Hafeezpet, Seri lingampally (M), R.R.District. 5 P.Venkateshwar Rao R/o. SRT 210, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. 6 Manikyamma W/o. P. Venkateswar Rao R/o. SRT 210, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not receiving & registering case against the respondents 3-6- herein pursuant to petitioner's complaint dated. 25-08-08 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to register case against the respondents 3-6-herein and take action as per law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19142 of 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the alleged inaction on the part of the second respondent-Station House Oﬃcer, Miyapur Police Station in taking action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 25-08-2008 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the second respondent to register a case against respondents 2 to 5 and take appropriate action as per law. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of diﬀerent extents of land situated in Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with one B.Yadagiri Goud, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 04-09-2006. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents 5 and 6 herein who are the adjacent land owners as well as the respondents 3 and 4 who are their representatives have been attempting to encroach upon the land in their possession and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to ﬁle O.S.No.2892 of2007 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar seeking a decree for perpetual injunction. Pending the said suit, the Civil Court, by order, dated 02-11-2007, in I.A.No.4538 of 2007 granted temporary injunction restraining respondents 3 to 6 herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. It is alleged that in spite of the said order, the respondents 3 to 6 have been attempting to encroach the land in question and making eﬀorts to start the construction over the said land. In the circumstances, the petitioner made a written complaint before the second respondent. However, he refused to receive the same on the ground that the nature of the dispute is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the said action of the second respondent, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. It is true that under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. every information relating to the commission of any cognizable oﬀence shall be reduced to writing by the Oﬃcer in-charge of the Police Station and as per sub- section (2), a copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forth with, free of cost to the informant. It is relevant to note that under sub-section (3) of Section 154 any person aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Office in-charge of the Police Station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may sent the substance of such information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police. That apart it is also open to the Complainant to make a complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the oﬀence. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the alleged non-registration of FIR pursuant to the information given by the petitioner cannot be taken as a ground to issue a Writ of Mandamus as sought for. Further as held by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1685 of 2007 (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others), when the petitioner has not taken recourse to any of the alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, he cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to work out the alternative remedies available, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 05-09-2008 KLP