IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6454 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Umadevi W/o. K. Prasad (Late) R/o.3-3-R 13, Maseed Line, L.B. Nagar, R.R. Dist. 2 P. Chaya Latha D/o. P. Siva Ram Prasad, rep. by her father (Natural guardian) P. Siva Ram Prasad, R/o.3-3-213, L.B. Nagar, R.R. Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Inspector of Police, Saroornagar Police Station, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar Police Station, Hayathnagar, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 3 K. Manoj Reddy, S/o. K. Sai Reddy R/o. Plot No.166, Dwarakapuram Colony, Near to High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram, R.R. Dist. 4 Huzurabad Surya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Sri K. Manoj Reddy, S/o. K. Sai Reddy, 1st Floor, Vedere Complex, Opp. Dilsukhnagar Bus Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.T.V.V.KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action on complaints, dated 15.09.2006 and 09.10.2006 sent by the petitioners, as per law. Heard Sri T.V.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners averred that respondent No.3 sold certain plots to them but later, he sold the same plots to some third parties, which act constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. They further averred that petitioner No.1 gave complaints on 15.09.2006 and 09.10.2006 before respondent Nos.1 and 2 against respondent Nos.3 and 4, but no action has been taken so far. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioners claimed to have given their complaints on 15.09.2006 and 09.10.2006 i.e. more than 1½ years back and there is nothing on record to show that they have followed up the said complaints with further representations. Even if on the alleged complaints given by the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken action, the petitioners are not remediless. Under Section 190 read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have an effective remedy of filing a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who is empowered to either take cognizance of the alleged offence or refer the complaint to the police concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and filing a report. This view of mine is fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India[1]. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8428 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th MARCH, 2008 kvni [1] 2007(6) SCC 171