IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12725 of 2008 Between: Moula Khan S/o. Roshan Kham R/o. Ralamandal Village, Munavar Tana Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh State. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 3 Mr. Hanumappa S/o.Not known Sub Inspector of Police, Jadcherla P.S. Mahabubnagar 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or Direction more particularly one in the natrue of writ of Manamus declaring the action of the respondent no.1 and 2 herein in not taking any action against the 3rd Respondent pursuant to the complaint dt. 24-5-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust unconstitutional and violative of the fundamenal rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein to forthwith enquire into the matter and to take action against the 3rd Respondent herein and further directing the 3rd respondent herein to return the gold pusthela thadu which is in his custody, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12725 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The grievance in the writ petition is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not taken any action against the 3rd respondent pursuant to his complaint dated 24-05-2008 addressed to the 2nd respondent. In the complaint dated 24-05- 2008, the petitioner in substance alleges that the 3rd respondent while functioning as Sub-inspector of Police, Jadcherla Police Station, Mahabubnagar District has ‘…snatched away the gold pusthela thadu from my inner packet of pant and also collected net cash of Rs.3,000/- from me and illegally detained me in his illegal custody for about five days. During this period of illegal detention I was put to much mental agony as I was not even allowed to speak to my family members over telephone and to inform my present location. Lastly, having disgusted with the attitude of the SI of Police when I have demanded to shell down my money and to hand over my gold ornament so as to enable me to go back to my native place, the SI of Police falsely implicated me in a criminal case vide FIR No. 179/2008 of his station and produced me in the court on 07-05-2008. The said fact of taking me into custody on 02-05-2008 and producing me in the Court on 07-05-2008 is clearly mentioned in the copy of remand furnished to me at the time of sending me to Court. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jadcherla though snatched Rs.3,000- 00 from me, he paid Rs.100-00 out of it to the person who prepared remand diary and shown fake recovery of Rs.2,900/- from my custody which in fact is my own money. The SI of Police in order to gain wrongfully out of my pathetic condition snatched my wife’s pusthela thadu Wg.2.900 mg worth Rs.30,000/- approximately and to save his skin from such illegal custody theft implicated me in a criminal case. It is submitted that my name is not mentioned as an offender in the FIR No. 179/2008 issued U/s. 379 IPC. In fact I was taken into custody on 02-05-2008 only and by creating a false story of apprehending me at bus stand, I was produced in Court on 07- 05-2008.’ No administrative action having been taken by the 2nd respondent on the petitioner’s complaint, the petitioner is before this Court. The complaint of the petitioner prima facie conveys information as to the commission of cognizable offence in which event the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate by way of a private complaint under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedies under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 11-07-2008 Pvks/*