THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.28579 OF 2011 ORDER: The action of the third respondent in supporting the fourth respondent in locking the petitioner’s college, and in not considering the complaint submitted by the petitioner, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner, a Society, is said to have been running a Junior and Degree College in a building owned by the fourth respondent. There are civil disputes pending between both of them. On the ground that the fourth respondent locked the petitioner’s college, the petitioner claims to have filed a complaint before the third respondent. Alleging that the third respondent did not receive the said complaint, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. When the matter was listed on 21.10.2011, learned Government Pleader for Home sought time to get instructions. Today, the learned Government Pleader would submit that no complaint has been received from the petitioner; as such no action could be taken pursuant thereto; the police officials are not interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the fourth respondent; and the petitioner ought to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent civil Court to adjudicate the civil dispute. Sri Vallaba Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would reiterate what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, and insist that the complaint was lodged with the third respondent, but he had refused to receive the same on account of political influence. A copy of the complaint has not been filed as part of the material papers annexed to the Writ Petition. In the light of the denial by the third respondent, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine whether or not the complaint had in fact been made by the petitioner herein. In any event, the petitioner has an effective remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and file a complaint before him. As held by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others[1], the Magistrate concerned has not only the power to order registration of an offence, but also to direct the officer incharge of the concerned police station to hold proper investigation and, if need be, to monitor the investigation, if any, carried on. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, I consider it wholly inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 29th October 2011 RRB [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409