IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6539 of 2008 Between: K. Sivaiah S/o K. Venkateswarlu R/o Matukumalli Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur district. 2 The Station House Officer, Savyalapuram Police Station, Guntur District. 3 Chintala Venkateswarlu S/o Brahmaiah R/o Mutukumalli, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. 4 Ch/ Hanumantha Rao S/o Venkateswarlu R/o Mutukumalli, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. 5 Ch. Bramaiah S/o Venkateswarlu R/o Mutukumalli, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.U.RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not taking action against respondent Nos.3 to 5 in accordance with law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to dispose of representation, dated 13.08.2007. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that in connection with a land dispute, he gave complaint against respondent Nos.3 to 5; that on the basis of the said complaint, respondent No.2 registered Crime No.56 of 2006 against respondent Nos.3 to 5, arrested and remanded them to judicial custody and that they were later released on bail. The petitioner further averred that after their release, respondent Nos.3 to 5 entered the Village and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences for giving complaint and that they have also filed false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner further averred that he made a representation on 13.08.2007 to respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.3 to 5 and that no action has been taken so far. Having heard the arguments of Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. On the petitioner’s own showing, on his complaint given against respondent Nos.3 to 5, respondent No.2 already registered a crime and has taken action by arresting them. A criminal case is thus, pending against respondent Nos.3 to 5. This shows that respondent No.2 acted with promptitude on the complaint given by the petitioner. If respondent Nos.3 to 5 committed any further offence after they were released on bail, the petitioner was at liberty to give another complaint to respondent No.2. Instead he claims that he made a representation to respondent No.1, which, in my opinion, is wholly unwarranted. On the above premises, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file a complaint before respondent No.2 if respondent Nos.3 to 5 indulged in commission of fresh offence and if respondent No.2 does not take action thereon, the petitioner shall be free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8534 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th MARCH, 2008 kvni