IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6932 of 2008 Between: Parvataneni Venkata Narasimha Rao … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, A.P., & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for respondents 1 & 2: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6932 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate action on complaint dated 18.02.2008 of the petitioner by registering a case against respondent Nos.4 and 5. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that disputes persist between him and respondent No.4 with regard to a money transaction. He alleged that he encashed a cheque for Rs.3 lakhs given by respondent No.4 and that respondent Nos.4 and 5 later demanded repayment of the said money and when he did not oblige them in that regard, they came to his house and threatened to outrage the modesty of his wife, kidnap and kill his children, if he does not return the said amount of Rs.3 lakhs. The petitioner pleaded that he gave a complaint to respondent No.1 and the Hon’ble Minister for Home Affairs, in turn endorsed the petitioner’s complaint to respondent No.2 to take action against respondent No.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of receiving the said endorsements, respondent No.2 did not register any case on his complaint dated 18.02.2008. He therefore prayed for the relief as mentioned hereinabove. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The main grievance of the petitioner against respondent No.2 is that in collusion with respondent Nos.4 and 5, he has not registered any crime on the complaint given by him to respondent No.1 endorsed by the Hon’ble Home Minister. Under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate directions to the police for registering a complaint and investigating into the same. This view of mine is fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others[1]. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments contained in his affidavit, wherein he made serious allegations against respondent No.3. Since no relief against respondent No.3 is claimed in the main writ petition, I am not inclined to go into the same. If respondent No.3 continues to harass the petitioner as alleged by him, he is given liberty to approach respondent No.1 with a complaint against respondent No.3 and if any such complaint is received, respondent No.1 shall examine the same and take appropriate action thereon. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.9073 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.04.2008 ES [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171