N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19157 of 2009 Between: N.Thimothi Babau @ Sudhakar ..... Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Khammam, Khammam District and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Y.Subramanyam Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Home Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 7: --- This Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3, in registering complaint, dated 02-12-2008, of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Y.Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.5- Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Limited. According to him, on 16-10-2008 at 4.00 p.m., he was instructed, by the Assistant Line Man, to climb a transformer. Accordingly, when he climbed the transformer and was arranging fuses as per the instructions, electricity had suddenly passed therein, in view of the alleged negligence of the Assistant Line Man, who switched on the line even before the petitioner got down from the said transformer, and that as a result of the same, the petitioner fell unconscious and suffered severe burn injuries. The petitioner claimed that he was admitted as an inpatient in a Hospital and given treatment upto 30th October, 2008, and that after his discharge, he approached respondent No.2- Police Station with a complaint and that respondent No.2, instead of receiving the complaint, abused him and made him write a letter, as per his dictation, withdrawing the same. The petitioner averred that he was made to withdraw the complaint under coercion. Regrettably, none of the respondents have filed counter-affidavit, though the case has undergone as many as five adjournments from 10-09-2009. The allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.2 has coerced him to withdraw the complaint remains uncontroverted. If this allegation bears truth, the action of respondent No.2 warrants serious action against him, apart from remedying the injustice caused to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, directed to hold an enquiry into the petitioner’s complaint and take appropriate action according to law. If it is found that the petitioner was made to withdraw the complaint by coercion, respondent No.1 shall ensure that the complaint of the petitioner is registered and investigation is done in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If respondent No.1 finds that the petitioner’s allegation is incorrect, no action need be taken. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.25019 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 3rd March, 2010 lur