IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7254 of 2008 Between: Imtiaz Ahmed Khan S/o Mohd., Khaja, r/o H. No. 17-1-175/200, Nehru Nagar, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Chandrayanagutta Police Station, Hyderabad 2 Zaki S/o not Known to the petitioner, R/o H. No. 17-1-4/2, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.LAYEEQ KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1, in not taking action on the complaint given by the petitioner on 01-03-2008, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to take immediate action on the said complaint. Heard Sri M.Layeeq Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner claimed that he has purchased an extent of 200 square yards of land situated in Plot No.47 of Ahmed Nagar, Bandlaguda, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad District, under an agreement of sale dated 13-02-2008; that respondent No.2, who is indulging in extortion of money from the purchasers of properties, demanded certain amounts illegally, and as the petitioner refused to oblige the said unlawful demand, respondent No.2 threatened him that he would be dispossessed, if the amount is not paid. The petitioner claimed that he filed a complaint on 01-03- 2008 before respondent No.1 against respondent No.2, and his grievance is that no action has been taken so far. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee vs. Union of India[1] held as under: ‘Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence, which is cognizable one, there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India ((1996) 11 SCC 582) and reiterated in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra ((2004) 7 SCC 768) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh v. State of U.P. ((2006) 5 SCC 733), Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar ((2006) 4 SCC 359) and Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2006) 2 SCC 677), we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari case the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted, which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Minu Kumari case and Hari Singh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar ((2006) 12 SCC 229). The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institite of Medical Sciences case Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case and Minu Kumari case. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code.’ On the above premise, the Supreme Court gave the following directions: ‘(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions.’ In view of the above-reproduced dicta, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by way of private complaint. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9519 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd April, 2008 lur [1] (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171