IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15930 of 2010 Between: B. Rajeshwari ... PETITIONER a n d The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar district, Karimnagar and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt.B. Rajeshwari with a prayer to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in closing the Crime No.15 of 2009 dated 16-01-2009 by filing a final report on 16-06-2009 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and consequently direct the respondents to investigate the matter. 2. The petitioner claims that the patta certificate has been issued in the name of her husband in respect of Ac.0-05 gts., of land of plot No.6 in Sy.No.467 situated at Kothapalli village, Jammikunta mandal. Since in plot No.6 only Ac.0-01/2 gts., of land is available, the husband of the petitioner made a representation to the Revenue authorities to cancel the patta issued in respect of plot No.6 and instead allot land in plot No.12 comprising of Sy.No.467. The petitioner has been residing in plot No.12 by constructing a shed for the last 10 years. The petitioner made several representations to the Revenue authorities to allot plot No.12 by issuing patta certificate. She made representation to the District Collector to regularize her possession in respect of plot No.12 instead of plot No.6. The District Collector vide proceedings Rc.No.E3/1454/2009 dated 25- 04-2009 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action. She lodged a complaint on 16-01-2009 alleging that Sadanandam and four others tress- passed into the land in her occupation and demolished the compound wall. Basing on the complaint, the Station House Officer, Jammikunta Police Station registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 427, 448 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code. He took up the investigation and filed the final report stating that the dispute between the petitioner and the accused is a civil nature. Assailing the final report filed by the third respondent in Crime No.15 of 2009, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent has not conducted the investigation properly and therefore, further investigation is required to be ordered giving necessary instructions to the respondents 1 to 3. I am unable to exceed his request since there are enough provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code to take proper action by filing a private complaint in case the petitioner is not satisfied with the final report filed by the third respondent in Crime No.15 of 2009. It is trite to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others[1] wherein it has been held as follows:- “In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the Police Station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.” 6. Since the petitioner has every right to make a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate in the event of her being not satisfied with the final report, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the given facts and circumstances is misconstrued. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 07, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15930 of 2010 July 07, 2010 [1] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 907