IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19886 of 2010 BETWEEN Narendra Soorabathula. ... PETITIONER AND The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and five others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. K. SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not registering the complaints filed by him. 2. The respondents have now filed a counter affidavit of third respondent, which refers to three complaints filed by the petitioner dated 06.09.2009, 12.09.2009 and 18.09.2009. The counter affidavit further states that to the extent of complaint dated 06.09.2009 GD entry was made on the same day and preliminary enquiry is taken up, however, no further details relating to further action taken by the respondents is mentioned in the counter. To the extent of complaint dated 12.09.2009, the counter affidavit states that though Cr.No.1029 of 2009 was registered, after investigation it was closed and referred as ‘lack of evidence’ and the final report is being placed before the concerned Court by following due process of law. Similarly, third complaint dated 18.09.2009 also is said to have been investigated by making entry in the GD on the same day. It is also averred that legal opinion was obtained with respect to the said complaint and on the basis of the legal opinion further action was initiated. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Home states that subsequent to the filing of the counter, on 27.11.2010, the aforesaid complaint dated 18.09.2009 was also closed on the ground of lack of evidence and the matter is to be reported to the concerned Court. 4. In the light of the above, even if the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which action was taken by the respondents on his complaints, he has an effective alternative remedy to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 154 and/or 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as laid down by the Supreme Court in SAKIRI VASU v. STATE OF U.P.[1]. Further to the extent of the complaints, which are closed on the ground of lack of evidence, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate and file an application protesting against the said closure report and the concerned Magistrate has powers to proceed further in the matter, if he is satisfied. In view of the liberty available to the petitioner, as referred to above, it is not necessary to pursue the present writ petition any further. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, if so advised, as mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 14, 2011 DSK [1] AIR 2008 SC 907