IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19690 of 2008 Between: 1 Rekha Patel W/o. Manoj R/o. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 Mamatha Patel W/o. Ramesh Patel R/o. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Officer, Miyapur P.S., Miyapur, R.R. District. 2 T. Duggi Reddy S/o. Duggi Reddy R/o. H.No.6-22, Opp: Kukatpally Bus Depot, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to receive the complaint to register crime against the 2nd respondent basing on the dismissal order in I.A.No.2579/2006 in O.S.No.2049/2006 as illegal, improper and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register the crime ad take cognizance against the 2nd respondent, and to pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19690 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners claim title and possession in respect of 281-40 square yards of land situated in Survey Nos.76, 77 and 78 of Maktha Mahaboobpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under an agreement of sale, dated 03.01.2004 executed by one P.Venkateswara Rao. In the aﬃdavit, ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that since one Mallesh Yadav was attempting to enter into the possession of the petitioners’ land on the basis of an agreement of sale allegedly executed by P.Venkateswara Rao, the petitioners ﬁled O.S.No.2049 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking a decree for speciﬁc performance of agreement of sale, dated 03.01.2004, against their vendor-P.Venkateswara Rao as well as Mallesh Yadav, who was interfering with their possession over the land in question. Initially, the civil Court granted an order of status quo. While so, the second respondent herein, who also claims title to the land in question through the vendor of the petitioners (P.Venkateswara Rao), under an agreement of sale of the year 2006, got himself impleaded as defendant and the said suit is pending. While things stood thus, since the second respondent was unlawfully making attempts to dump construction material on the land in question and also ﬁxed a gate, the petitioners lodged a complaint with the ﬁrst respondent-Station House Oﬃcer, Miyapur Police Station, on 23.07.2008, requesting to take action against the second respondent. It is alleged that the ﬁrst respondent refused to receive the complaint, and taking advantage of the same, the second respondent was making hectic eﬀorts to proceed with his unlawful activities. Though the petitioners filed an application in O.S.No.2049 of 2006 seeking injunction against the 2nd respondent herein, the matter is yet to be heard. In the circumstances, the petitioners again approached the ﬁrst respondent on 01.09.2008 requesting to take action against the 2nd respondent, but he refused to receive the complaint and register the same on the ground that the Civil Court refused to grant injunction in respect of the land in question against the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said alleged inaction on the part of the first respondent, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the suit is already pending, in which the petitioners moved an application for injunction against the second respondent, the ﬁrst respondent ought to have received their complaint and registered a crime by following due process of law. It is further contended that the inaction on the part of the ﬁrst respondent to receive the complaint and take appropriate action against the second respondent is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. As could be seen form the material on record, O.S.No.2049 of 2006 is pending on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in which the rival claims made by the petitioners as well as the second respondent are yet to be decided. So far as the alleged unlawful activities of the second respondent are concerned, the petitioners claim that they lodged a complaint before the ﬁrst respondent on 23.07.2008, in person. However, it is alleged that the ﬁrst respondent refused to receive the complaint. Even assuming that the plea of the petitioners that the ﬁrst respondent refused to register the First Information Report, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is correct, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the Superintendent of Police, under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. by ﬁling an application in writing. It is true that under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. every information relating to the commission of any cognizable oﬀence shall be reduced to writing by the Oﬃcer in-charge of the Police Station and as per sub-section (2), a copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forth with, free of cost to the informant. It is relevant to note that under sub-section (3) of Section 154 any person aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Oﬃce in-charge of the Police Station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may sent the substance of such information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police. That apart it is also open to the Complainant to make a complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the oﬀence. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the alleged non-registration of FIR pursuant to the information given by the petitioners cannot be taken as a ground to issue a Writ of Mandamus as sought for. Further as held by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1685 of 2007 (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others), when the petitioners have not taken recourse to any of the alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, they cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to work out the alternative remedies available, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI 10th September 2008 Note: Issue CC in two days. B/o dr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Station House Officer, Miyapur P.S., Miyapur, R.R. District. 2 2 CCs to Government Pleader for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 3 2 CD copies.