THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26790 of 2008 Dated: 21.09.2010 Between: Mohd. Saleem. .. Petitioner. And The Station House Officer, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents. ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that he lodged a report on 26.09.2008 before the 1st respondent-Station House Office, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderbad, against the 2nd respondent, but so far the 1st respondent has not taken any action thereupon. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent, stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the observations made in the judgment in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.[1], wherein it is held as under: “If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3), Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36, Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the Officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Morever he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies? May be the writ petition is not maintainable for seeking a direction to the police to register a crime on the basis of the report lodged by the aggrieved party, but in the case on hand, the petitioner complains that the report lodged by him on 26.09.2008 is not taken up for consideration till date. In facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent-Station House Officer, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of the report purported to have been lodged by the petitioner on 26.09.2008, as per law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 21.09.2010 v v [1] AIR 2008 SC 907