IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2397 of 2008 Between: Mr. Ch. Mohan Rao … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R. Raghunandan Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondents 4 to 6: Sri K. Rammohan Mahadeva This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2397 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in granting protection to the petitioner in respect of Ac.12.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.93/2/A, 93/2/A/B of Pulimamidi Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in pursuance of the endorsement of the Hon’ble Home Minister, Government of A.P., made on the petitioner’s application dated 17.12.2007, as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take immediate investigation on the various offences set out in the complaint. Heard Sri R. Raghunandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K. Rammohan Mahadeva for respondent Nos.4 to 6. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 indulged in a civil litigation and the petitioner claims that he succeeded in the said litigation. The grievance of the petitioner is that in defiance of the judgments of the Court of competent jurisdiction, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are seeking to interfere with his possession apart from attempting to dispose of the properties and that though criminal complaints have been filed before respondent No.3 and the Hon’ble Minister for Home made an endorsement on the representation of the petitioner directing the police to examine, enquire and do justice, no action is being taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to register the criminal case. In my considered view, if respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to register a complaint into a cognizable offence, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as held by the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others[1]. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.3081 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.03.2008 ES [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171