HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.8694 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The relief sought for by the petitioner is against the third respondent in not registering his complaint, dated 05.12.2009. A copy of the complaint, which is produced in the material papers at page No.14, shows that the petitioner filed a complaint with the Station House Officer, Bapatla Rural Police Station for taking appropriate criminal action against the persons mentioned there in for occupying the lands belonging to Marripudi Adi Andhra Tenent Co-operative Society. According to the petitioner, occupation of the said lands of the persons named is clearly unauthorized and therefore he seeks the Station House Officer to register a complaint and take action for illegal occupation. Alleging inaction on the part of the third respondent, this writ petition is filed. I am unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C gives an adequate remedy to the petitioner to approach jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint. Even if according to the petitioner the Station House Officer has not acted upon his complaint, in view of availability of such affective alternative remedy, the present writ petition is clearly misconceived. In view of the above and following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. Sate of U.P[1], the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 13.12.2011 va [1] AIR 2008 SC 907