IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5413 of 2008 Between: N. Chinnayya S/o narsanna h.No. 2-64/1/6/4, Gopanpally Villge, Sherlingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Chandanagar PS., Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.NAGAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not taking further steps including arrest of the accused in pursuance of F.I.R.No.60 of 2008, dated 27.02.2008 on the file of respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to take action for arrest of the accused in the said crime. Heard Sri Y.Nagaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. In his affidavit, the petitioner alleged that he belongs to Madiga community and is working as a Security Guard in the office of Great Indian Mining Company Limited; that one Ramanamani, Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally came to the office, where he was working as Security Guard, and asked for whereabouts of the Manager of the Company telling him that she came to the premises for demanding ransom of Rs.5,00,000/- which was promised by the Manager but not paid and that in that connection, the said person used filthy language against the petitioner’s Manager, ordered the petitioner to ensure the presence of the Manager and abused him by using his caste name. The petitioner claimed that he lodged a complaint before Raidurg Police Station under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and when the police refused to register the complaint, he approached the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District by filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the complaint being referred to by the said Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., by order, dated 25.02.2008, respondent No.2 registered the complaint as F.I.R.No.60 of 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far, respondent No.2 has not taken steps to arrest the accused. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for two reasons, namely, that the petitioner failed to make the accused, whose arrest is sought for in the present writ petition, as a party to the writ petition. It is fundamental that no person can seek relief against another without making him a party to the proceedings. Further, the facts pleaded by the petitioner show that on the reference made by the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a criminal case was already registered against the accused on 25.02.2008 and hardly two weeks passed by since then. If the petitioner is of the view that respondent No.2 has not been conducting the investigation properly or that he is not discharging his duties in accordance with law, it is open to him to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek appropriate directions against respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the relief sought for in this writ petition is wholly misconceived and cannot be granted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District for appropriate directions. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.7016 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th MARCH, 2008 kvni