The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.15516 of 2010 Dated 4th August, 2010 Between: Kollu Rajagopal Naidu …Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, and 8 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.A.Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9: Mr.K.Arvinda Rao The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4, in registering a case on the petitioner’s complaints, dated 10-06-2010 and 11- 06-2010, against respondent Nos.5 to 9, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri K.Arvinda Rao, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he is the tenant of respondent No.5 and that the said respondent, promising to lend some money, obtained promissory notes and certain cheques and that without advancing the money, she demanded the petitioner to pay the amounts shown to have been advanced to him under the said pronotes. It is further alleged that on 10-06-2010 at 9.00 a.m., respondent No.5 entered the petitioner’s house and threatened him to kill if the amount is not repaid in two days’ time. The petitioner is stated to have submitted a report on 10-06-2010 to respondent No.4 and as no action was taken thereon, a further report was lodged on 11-06-2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has not taken any action on the said two reports. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that he has not received either of the two reports said to have been lodged by the petitioner and that if the petitioner approaches him with appropriate report and the contents thereof disclose commission of a cognizable offence, he will take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned Counsel for respondents Nos.5 to 9 submitted that the petitioner has vacated the house in question and is no longer residing therein and that the allegation that his clients have threatened the petitioner is absolutely false. The petitioner has not filed proof of filing of the above-said reports before respondent No.4. Though, ordinarily, the petitioner is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., with a private complaint, in the light of the stand taken by respondent No.4 that if the petitioner approaches him with a report and its contents disclose commission of a cognizable offence, appropriate action will be taken, the Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to lodge a report before respondent No.4, who shall take appropriate action thereon strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.19544 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 4th August, 2010 lur