IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13186 of 2008 Between: Syed Hafeez Ali S/o Syed Amjad r/o H. No. 9-4-419/184, Aruna Colony, Towli Chowki, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. 2 The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Madhapur Madhapur, R.R. 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction,more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaringthe action of the 2nd respondent visiting the house of the petitionr and detaining him in his illegal custody from morning to late night is arbtirary, illegal and failure to exercise the power vested in him apart from being violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art14,1 9, 21 of the Constitution of India direct the 2nd respondnets not to enter into the house of petitioner without registering a crime and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SYED LATEEF Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed alleging that the 2nd respondent is visiting the house of the petitioner and detaining him in illegal custody from morning to night without just cause and without any formal case registered against the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent is frequently visiting the petitioner’s house on the pretext that there is a complaint against one Syed Hameed Ali who is the petitioner’s brother and enquiring about the whereabouts of the said Hameed Ali. When the petitioner disclaimed knowledge about Hameed Ali, he was taken to Madhapur Police Station, forced to sit in the police station till 9-00 PM, is the grievance. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent indulged in this unlawful activity on more than one occasion including on 12-6-2008 on which date, it is alleged, the 2nd respondent took him to the police station, threatened the petitioner to disclose the whereabouts of Hameed Ali, detained him till late night and also beat him. The petitioner has not made any such complaint to the 1st respondent. Why the 1st respondent is impleaded in the writ petition is not clear. If the petitioner has a grievance about the unlawful conduct of the 2nd respondent who is administratively under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, the petitioner could as well lodge a complaint of the said conduct of the 2nd respondent, to the 1st respondent. If the 1st respondent did not act on such complaint, which the 1st respondent was bound to act upon the petitioner would have a grievance and could have approached this Court for appropriate directions to the 1st respondent. The petitioner also had the remedy of lodging a complaint against the 2nd respondent of commission of a cognizable offence in abuse of his official authority either before the police station, before the 1st respondent or before the Criminal court of competent jurisdiction as per the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Instead the petitioner has straightaway filed this writ petition making allegations against the 2nd respondent without pursuing the appropriate statutory remedy or even making an administrative complaint. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 21st August, 2008. GRR