IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16560 of 2010 BETWEEN T. Ramachary. ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner’s complaint is that the police are not registering a case against respondents 3 and 4 and seeks a consequential direction to them to do so. 2. The facts put forth in the writ affidavit demonstrate that the petitioner lodged a complaint against respondents 3 and 4 on 29.06.2010 with the Station House Officer, Tandur and thereafter, with the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad on 05.07.2010. 3. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SAKIRI VASU v. STATE OF U.P.[1], a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the proper remedy in the event the police do not register a complaint or do not properly investigate into an alleged offence. The proper procedure is to invoke the alternate remedy available i.e. to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) and/or the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Without availing such remedy, the petitioner herein approached this Court directly. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the threshold leaving it open to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy available to him under the Cr.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 13, 2010 DSK [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409