IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15009 of 2009 Between: Sri Dynampalli Mahipal S/o. Ramaswamy Pvt. Ltd., R/o. Shayampet Village and Mandal Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police Warangal, Warangal District. 2 The Inspector of Police Shayampeta Police Station, Warangal District. 3 The Sub- Inspector of Police Shayampeta Police Station, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This is yet another case where a purported complainant filed this writ petition alleging that his signature on the complaint was obtained by misrepresentation and Crime No.59 of 2009 was registered based on such complaint. At the hearing, it is represented by Sri K.V.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.13093 of 2009 by order, dated 02.07.2009 wherein a similar issue was considered. In the said Writ Petition, it is inter alia held as under: “…the question whether the petitioner gave a complaint voluntarily or under the threat of respondent No.5 cannot be decided in this Writ Petition, while exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to send his representation to respondent No.2. If such a representation is received, respondent No.2 shall cause an enquiry to be held and if it is found in the enquiry that the petitioner has not given the complaint voluntarily, he shall issue necessary instructions to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to permit the petitioner to withdraw his complaint. If respondent No.2 comes to a converse conclusion, the petitioner shall be free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with appropriate complaint”. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has apprehension about the impartiality of respondent No.1, any other Police Officer may be directed to consider his representation. In view of the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range. If such a representation is received, he shall cause an enquiry to be held and if it is found in the enquiry that the petitioner has not given the complaint voluntarily, he shall issue necessary instructions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to withdraw his complaint. If the Inspector General of Police comes to a converse conclusion, the petitioner shall be free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with appropriate petition. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.19712 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th JULY, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in two (2) days. kvni