IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16567 of 2010 BETWEEN Smt. Bakkamunthala Rajani. ... PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police, Nellore and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. GANGARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner assails the action of the police authorities, respondents 1 to 3, in not taking cognizance of her complaints dated 13.03.2010 and 13.05.2010. She seeks a consequential direction to them to take necessary action thereon. 2. The petitioner’s complaint dated 13.03.2010 was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Nellore while the legal notice dated 13.05.2010 issued on her behalf was addressed to private parties and copies thereof were marked to the Superintendent of Police, Nellore and other police officials. 3. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SAKIRI VASU v. STATE OF U.P.[1], a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the proper remedy in the event the police do not register a complaint or do not properly investigate into an alleged offence. The proper procedure is to invoke the alternate remedy available i.e. to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) and/or the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, she can initiate action under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the concerned Magistrate. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the threshold leaving it open to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy under the Cr.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 13, 2010 DSK [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409