THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8289 OF 2010 Dated 15th April, 2010 Between: Smt Sangeeta …Petitioner And State of A.P. and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in registering case against respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 3 to register a case against respondent No.4. I have heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3. According to the petitioner, an extent of 200 square yards situated in Plot No.9, Survey No.31 of Vidyanagar, Adilabad, was alienated in her favour through a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2001 by respondent No.1 and that she is in possession of the said plot. A 60 feet road is stated to separate the said plot with the District Court complex. The petitioner alleged that she was summoned by the District Judge, Adilabad on 24.02.2010 and insisted that she shall handover the plot to respondent No.4. As the petitioner resisted the said demand, the members of respondent No.4 - association are stated to have visited the petitioner’s plot and her residence on 20.03.2010, took measurements virtually making a criminal trespass and later on 03.04.2010, respondent No.4 erected a board showing that the land belongs to Judicial Department and Court. The petitioner claimed to have lodged a report on 06.04.2010 before respondents 2 and 3 and that the said respondents allegedly stated that as the dispute is with the judiciary, they are helpless. A perusal of the material filed by the petitioner shows that on the report given by the petitioner, respondent No.3 endorsed as under: “The facts entered in GD. Since the facts are amounts to civil nature, the complainant is directed to approach court for justice.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 was not justified in making the abovementioned endorsement as the facts stated in the petitioner’s report given to respondent No.3 disclose commission of an offence of criminal trespass. In my opinion, the petitioner has effective remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the report given by the aggrieved party is not registered as an offence, he/she can approach the Superintendent of Police of the District under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, in fitness of things, it would be appropriate that the petitioner approaches respondent No.2 with a representation. If the contents of the representation reveal commission of an offence, respondent No.2 shall act in accordance with the abovementioned provision. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent No.2, she can avail her remedy under Section 190 Cr.P.C as held by the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others[1] and Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P[2]. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10683 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th April, 2010 vrn [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171 [2] AIR 2008 SC 907