THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6172 OF 2010 Dated 18th March, 2010 Between: Vittanala Rama Tulasi …Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police And five others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.Narender Raj Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner, a widow, filed this writ petition with a two-fold grievance, namely; (1) her complaint dated 08.02.2010 has not yielded any perceptible action by respondents 1 and 2 and (2) that despite her request to protect her life and property from respondents 3 to 6, respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any action. The facts pleaded by the petitioner reveal that after the death of her husband, her in-laws, who are respondents 3 and 6, and other family members, who are respondents 4 and 5, have been threatening the petitioner not to lay a claim for her share in the property and to leave the town. The petitioner claimed to have sent a complaint to respondent No.1 with a copy marked to respondent No.2. As regards the first grievance, under Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C, if the police officer concerned is of the opinion, on the basis of the information, that a cognizable offence has been committed, the same has to be mentioned in the register and take appropriate action. If such an action is not taken, the aggrieved party can approach the Superintendent of Police. If the Superintendent of Police also does not act, the aggrieved party has a remedy to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Inasmuch as the petitioner claims that she submitted a complaint, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the same and if he is satisfied that a cognizable offence is committed, he shall give appropriate instructions to respondent No.2 to register the complaint. If respondents 1 and 2 are not satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed and consequently do not register the case, the petitioner is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint. As regards the second grievance of the petitioner; the pleadings of the petitioner show that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 appears to be purely civil in nature. If respondents 3 to 6 interfere in the civil rights of the petitioner, she is entitled to claim relief in a competent civil Court. If respondents 3 to 6 threaten the petitioner of causing bodily harm to her, she is always entitled to approach respondents 1 and 2 with an appropriate complaint and if such complaint is filed, I have no reason to infer that the said respondents will not take appropriate action according to law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.7940 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 18th March, 2010 vrn