IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1442 of 2009 Between: Daraboina Durga Rao S/o. Mutaiyalu (Schedule Tribe) R/o. Mulugalampalli, Jeelugumilli (M) West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending of Police West Godavari District, Eluru 2 The Sub Inspector of Police Jeelugumilli (M) West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar Jeelugumilli (M) W.G. District. 4 Malladi Satyanarayana Chakravathy S/o Late Ramabraham R/o. Mulagalampalli (V) Jeelugumill (M) West 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 issued a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 not to take criminal action with regard to the complaint dt. 2-1-2009 forward by the 3rd Respondent on Petitioner complaint dt. 22-12-2008 against the 4 the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principal of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondent 1 & 2 to take necessary criminal action against the 4th Respondent on the complaint of the 3rd respondent dt. 2-1-2009 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NARAM.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that the 3rd respondent granted D-Form Patta vide LD No.76/1417F/JLM, dated 18.1.2008 to his wife Daraboina Rama Laxmi to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.48-3P, situated in Mulgalampalli village, and since then both the petitioner and his wife have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. On 18.12.2008, while his wife was reaping the crop, the 4th respondent obstructed her and outraged her modesty. Then, the petitioner made a complaint on 22.12.2008 to respondents 1 and 2 and also to the District Collector to take action against the 4th respondent. The District Collector forwarded the complaint to the 3rd respondent, who, having conducted an enquiry, sent his report on 2.1.2009 to respondents 1 and 2 suggesting to take action against the 4th respondent. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that even though the 3rd respondent, after conducting enquiry submitted report on the petitioner’s complaint to respondents 1 and 2, they have not taken any action against the 4th respondent, and further the 4th respondent is making attempts to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question by threatening him with dire consequences. Challenging the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The petitioner lodged the complaint before the District Collector on 22.12.2008, which was forwarded to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, having conducted the enquiry, submitted his report on 2.1.2009 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, suggesting to take action against respondent No.4, and it is too premature to say that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would not take action against respondent No.4 on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by respondent No.3. Hence, the writ petition is premature, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 2nd February, 2009 bcj