THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26396 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though there was a complaint lodged by her against the fourth respondent, no action has been taken by respondents 1 to 3 against him. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent denying various allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the petitioner and her brother borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him by executing a pro-note on 08.08.2008 and when they failed to repay the same, a legal notice, dated 07.09.2009 was issued by him demanding the petitioner and her brother for payment of the said amount. It was acknowledged by the petitioner on 10.09.2009. It is stated that the petitioner lodged the complaint before the police with false allegations. Although no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing on the letter, dated 29.12.2009 addressed by the Station House Officer, Elamanchili Police Station, West Godavari District, to the learned Government Pleader for Home, that in view of the complaint, dated 17.09.2009 lodged by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.83 of 2009 was registered against the fourth respondent for the offences under Sections 420, 341, 323, 506(2) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the file of Elamanchili Police Station, West Godavari, investigation was taken up, the petitioner and other witnesses were examined as L.Ws.1 to 6 and found that the evidence collected during the course of investigation was not corroborated the contents of FIR. It is also submitted that the investigation in the aforesaid crime revealed that the complaint lodged by the petitioner is false and therefore, proposals were sent to the first respondent to file final report in the matter. As much as the investigation in the crime in question is completed, it cannot be said that respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the fourth respondent. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, it is open to her to file objections against it by way of protest petition before the Magistrate concerned. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th JULY, 2010. kvni