IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7110 of 2008 Between: Dr.M.A.Rawood, S/o.Mohd.Abdul Aziz, In M/s DNOC.UAE, Permanent,R/o.Flat No.303, Royal Arcade Apartments, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Home Department, rep; by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police,Hyderabad City, Hyderabad City Police Commissionerate, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, Musheerabad,P.S.Musheerabad,Hyderabad. 4 Nishat Fatima, D/o.Mohd.Naseem Ahmed, R/o.H.No.16-9-487, Near Water Tank, Old Malakpet,Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.H.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering representation, dated 25.03.2008 of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.60 of 2008 of Musheerabad Police Station, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to investigate into the said crime, arrest the accused and restore the stolen property to the petitioner. Heard Sri H.Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition disclose that matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 exist. Respondent No.4 filed a complaint against the petitioner, on the basis of which, the police registered Crime No.11 of 2008 of Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad. On the complaint given by the petitioner, Crime No.60 of 2008 was registered by Musheerabad Police against respondent No.4 under Section 380 IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.3 - police registered a case against respondent No.4, no investigation is being done into the said crime and no report has been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the averments contained in the writ petition, I am of the view that the petitioner has an effective remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate and can seek appropriate directions to the police for proper conduct of investigation and filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as indicated above. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9330 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd APRIL, 2008 kvni