IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 4165 of 2009 Between: K. Gangadhar S/o. Nageswar Rao Sai Durga Fabrication Works, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar Police Station, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking any action on the complaint given by the petitioner on 17.11.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to enquire into the matter and to register a case pursuant to the complaint dt. 17.11.2008 and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI K.KRISHNA KISHORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.4165 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, in not registering a criminal case against one R.Sridhar and his henchmen, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner on 17.11.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that he is dealing with the business of fabrication works in the name and style of Sai Durga Fabrication Works and that one R.Sridhar, the owner of Onar Services situated at D.No.2-1- 390/7, Nallakunta, Hyderabad, was his regular customer. While so, on 12.10.2009, when the petitioner went to his native place to attend the funeral of his grandmother, the said Sridhar, along with his henchmen, came to his business premises and lifted all the material, which was kept ready for delivery, including the material belonging to the petitioner, in a forcible manner inspite of the resistance made by the workers of the petitioner and that, however, at the request of one of the workers of the petitioner, G.Naresh, one of the associates of the said Sridhar, had signed in the delivery register. The grievance of the petitioner is that after his returning from his village and coming to know about the said illegal action of the said Sridhar, he went to him and requested him to return the finished material taken away by him and his men, along with the due amount of Rs.2,20,000/-, but the said Sridhar threatened him with dire consequences, and therefore, the petitioner sent a written complaint on 17.11.2008 to the 2nd respondent to enquire into the matter and register a criminal case against the said R.Sridhar and his henchmen, but the 2nd respondent, instead of registering a case on the said complaint, is calling the petitioner to the police station and threatening him to compromise the issue with the said Sridhar. Hence, this writ petition. The 2nd respondent filed the counter affidavit stating that on receipt of communication about filing of the writ petition by the petitioner, he verified the records of the respondent police station, but there was no entry in the General Diary either on 17.11.2008 or on any subsequent dates with regard to receipt of the complaint from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent further stated that, however, in due obedience to filing of the writ petition, he summoned the petitioner and obtained the complaint dated 17.11.2008 from him and registered the same as a case in Crime No.305 of 2009 under Section 420 of IPC on 13.03.2009, and assured this Court that the investigation will be completed as expeditiously as possible. He admitted that there is some delay in registering the complaint of the petitioner, but it was neither willful nor wanton. Recording the aforesaid averments made by the 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit, the writ petition is closed. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 17.03.2009 v v