IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 17495 of 2008 Between: 1 Marisetty Vishnu Murthy S/o. thammaiah R/o. Narasapuram Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Smt. Mamidipalli Ananta Lakshmi W/o. Rama Rao R/o. Burugupudi Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Marisetty Venkateswara Rao S/o. Thammanna R/o. Narasapuram, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Dasari Venkateswara Rao S/o. Thammanna Dora, R/o. Gokavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Ramineedi Murali Mohan S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Jandapanja Road, Rajahamundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Govt. of A.P., Rep. by Superintendent of Police, Kakinada. 2 Sub Divisional Police Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari district. 3 Station House Officer, Rajanagaram Police Station, Rajanagaram Mandala, East Godavari District. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the representation dated 24.7.2008 submitted by the petitioner for providing police protection as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 24.7.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 17495 of 2008 Oral Order: The singular grievance of the petitioners is that their complaint conveying information as to the commission of a cognizable oﬀence by certain named individuals has not been registered and investigated as obligated by the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners also presented this complaint to the 1st respondent on 24- 07-2008, but with no resonance. But in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.1 the petitioners are seen to have a remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court. They are required to pursue such speciﬁc available statutory remedy and not this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons relegating the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedies, this writ petition is dismissed, but without costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 26-08-2008 pvks 1 AIR 2008 SC 907