IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2633 of 2008 Between: Koppolu Prasada Rao S/o.Malakondaiah, R/o.Nayanagar Kodad(V)&(M) Nalgonda Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police Govt of A.P,Hyd 2 The Superintendent of Police Nalgonda Dist Nalgonda 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Suryapet,Nalgonda Dist 4 Shiva Ram Reddy Sub-Inspector of Police Kodad Town Police Station, Nalgonda Dist 5 Erneni Venkata Ratnam@ Babu S/o.Venkateswara Rao, R/o.Azad Nagar,Bharateeya Vidya Mandir Bazar Kodad(V)&(M) Nalgonda Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BOMMINENI AGA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in not taking any action against respondent No.5 on the complaint given by the petitioner on 04.03.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take immediate action against respondent No.4 and to register a case against respondent No.5 in pursuance of complaint, dated 04.03.2007. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he is a resident of Nayanagar, Kodad Town, Nalgonda District; that he owns agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.75 guntas situated in Ravikompadu Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District; that he is also owning 1/4th share in a Pipe Factory under the name and style of M/s.Eswari Cement Industries situated at Nallabandagudem Village, Kodad Mandal and that respondent No.5, who is the Ex-Sarpanch of Kodad Gram Panchayat and the husband of the present Sarpanch, has been pressurizing him to register his land and share in the said factory in the name of his sister for a meager amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. He further averred that as he bluntly refused to meet the said illegal demand, respondent No.5 bore grudge against him and sent certain antisocial elements to his factory and they beat him, torn his clothes and forcibly took him to the house of respondent No.5, where he was illegally detained in a dark room threatening him with dire consequences if he does not accept the above mentioned illegal demand and that he was set free on 04.03.2007 at 21 hours. The petitioner further averred that on 03.03.2007, his family members approached respondent No.4 and lodged a complaint about his missing; that after the petitioner was freed, he approached respondent No.2 and lodged a written complaint and the said respondent in turn, endorsed the same to respondent No.4 to enquire into the matter and that when he approached respondent No.4, he abused him for his approaching respondent No.2 and he in collusion with respondent No.5 is not taking action on his complaint endorsed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit, in which, it is inter alia stated that on 04.03.2007, the petitioner submitted a petition stating that he and respondent No.5 (wrongly mentioned as sixth respondent) are going to settle the dispute before the elders and he, therefore, requested respondent No.4 not to initiate any action on the complaint lodged by him and that the petitioner has not turned up since then nor lodged any fresh complaint. He denied all other allegations made by the petitioner including his alleged collusion with respondent No.5 and threatening the petitioner in connection with the illegal demand made by respondent No.5. Respondent No.4 along with his counter affidavit, filed a copy of the letter, which reads as under: “I, K.Prasad Rao, S/o Mala Kondaiah resident of Kodada on 04.03.2007 the Sarpanch Yerneni Babu and his followers forcibly taken me from my Crusher Mill in their Jeep and caught in their house, in this regard I met and given complaint to the Superintendent of Police. In this regard the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodad Town has called the Sarpanch Mr. Yerneni Babu and both the parties have been presented before the Sub Inspector of Police along with my relatives and they have decided to settle the matter amicably on 08.03.2007. Hence kindly give protection from Yerneni Babu and his followers.” A reading of the above-reproduced letter shows that the petitioner represented that there were proposals to settle the matter amicably between him and respondent No.5 and they have fixed 08.03.2007 as the date for arriving at the settlement. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to controvert the allegations contained in the counter affidavit or the contents of the letter given by him, which is filed along with the counter affidavit. It is also not the case of the petitioner that after his giving the said letter, he sent any fresh complaint against respondent No.5 and that respondent No.4 failed to take any action against respondent No.5 on such complaint. From these facts, I am of the view that the petitioner’s allegation that respondent No.4 failed to take action against respondent No.5 has no basis. Even if the petitioner has any legitimate grievance against respondent No.4 for not taking proper action on his complaint against respondent No.5, he shall be free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. with a private complaint as held by the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India[1]. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.3389 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th MARCH, 2008 kvni [1] 2007(6) SCC 171