IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 19845 of 1999 Between: M/s. Shalimar Video Company, Mojam Jahi Market Road, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri. Md. Ashaq, S/o. Abdual Aziz, Age 45 Years , R/o. H.No. 11.2.263, Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Plice, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 Koneru Rama Rao, S/o. Koneru Mallaiah, H.No. 3-173, Shantinagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad ----- 500 072. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ, Order, or Direction, more paticularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS decalring the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the case of the petitioner against the 3rd respondent as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust; and consequently direct respondent to register the case of the petitioner and seize the recording equipment from the 3rd respondent; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.19845 OF 1999 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Inspector of Police, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, second respondent herein, in not registering a case against the third respondent as illegal arbitrary and direct him to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner against the third respondent. It is case of the petitioner that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the third respondent with regard to the complete rights of commercial and non-commercial exhibition, marketing and distribution in videocassettes of Telugu Colour 35 MM Talky picture. Thereafter, contrary to agreement, the third respondent started business of some videocassettes deck without any knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, there is a violation of Section 52 of the Copyright Act 1987, and accordingly, the petitioner made a complaint before the second respondent to initiate action against the third respondent and seize the manufacturing material on 19.08.1999 and the second respondent seized the material on 21.8.1999 but did not register any case and no investigation into the case has been made. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that if the police authorities fail to take any action on the complaint and if the complaint discloses that the offence is of cognizable in nature, the course open for the complainant is either to make a representation before the superior officer or move a criminal court by filing a private complaint. In view of the aforesaid procedure available under the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 02.04.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Plice, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 2CCs to G.P. for Home, High Court buildings, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad 4. 2CD copies