IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 9826 of 2001 Between: Mohammed Murtuza S/o.Mohammed Moulana R/o.H.No.4-1-1/25/1, King Koti, Hyderabad-A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep.by its Principal Secratary for Home, Secretriate, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Sanga Reddy, Medak 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 will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to call for the records relating the complaint dt.12/01/2001 and 18/1/2001 pending at respondent No.2 and direct the 2nd respondent to take action on the complaint of th petitioner and which is pending before the 2nd respondent take departmental action aganist the Station House Officer and Sub-Inspector of Police, Sadasuvpet, Medak District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ASADULLA SHAREEF Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that previously he filed W.P.No.25591 of 2000 on the file of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein not to interfere in the management of Dargah Hazrath Shah Mohammed Saheb and Masjid, as illegal and arbitrary. In the said writ petition respondents 1 to 3 are private parties and the respondents 4 to 6 are the official respondents. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22.12.2000 directing the official respondents therein to examine the complaint filed by the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is stated that as the said order of this Court has not been complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.175 of 2001 and after filing the counter, the contempt case was closed on 16.04.2001 on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sangareddy already conducted enquiry and the enquiry report was sent vide letter No.09/PT/SD/SGR/2001, dated 06.02.2001. The said enquiry report was also forwarded to the government vide letter dated 20.02.2001 and the enquiry report reveals that no prima facie case is made out. When a complaint has been filed before the police, two courses are open, i.e. if no action has been taken pursuant to the said complaint, it is open to the petitioner to file a petition before the superior police officers or to file a private complaint before the criminal court and on the other hand, if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has taken place, it is the duty of the police to register a case and investigate the same and file an appropriate report before the criminal Court. But, in the instant case, it is stated that the report has already been sent which discloses that no cognizable offence has been made out and therefore, no final report has been filed before the Court. That being so, it is always open to the petitioner to file a private complaint before the appropriate Court for setting the criminal law in to motion. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition with regard to the inaction on the part of the respondents as it is stated that the matter had already been enquired and the report has been filed before the government. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint before the criminal Court to take appropriate action. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:09.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR}