IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12751 of 2008 Between: Smt. Pattisapu Jogulamba S/o.UmaMaheshwar Rao R/o.Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer Gajuwaka L&OPolice Station Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus the inaction on the part of the respodents in not registering the F.I.R in congizable case for the offences under Sections 447&506 of L.P.C basing on the report dt.09- 06-2007 against the Sri Venu as illegal arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent to register the F.I.R and investigate the case and submit report to the concerned Metroplitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: One B. Venkat Rao is claimed to have lodged a complaint on 9.6.2007 on behalf of the petitioner to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Gajuwaka, alleging that one Banoji Rao had issued patta in 1968 for the land in an extent of 13 ½ cents in Plot Nos. 728 and 729 in Sy.No.86/P in favour of the complainant B. Venkat Rao and his mother-in-law, the petitioner herein, and that these persons have been in possession of the property since then; that on 9.6.2007 at 11 AM, the complainant had gone to the site and found an A.C. sheet shed therein and on verification learnt that one Dadi Venu had illegally made the construction; and that on enquiries one Veera Lakshmi and Venu represented that they were having political support and would inflict harm on the complainant and had also manhandled him. Aggrieved that the complaint has not been registered, the writ petition is filed. The petitioner has an efficacious, alternative remedy by way of preferring a complaint to the jurisdictional I Class Magistrate. In view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy, this Court is not inclined to undertake this grievance under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 30.6.2008 cvm