THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28852 OF 2009 Dated 21st July, 2010 Between: Kona Srinivas and three others …Petitioner And Government of A.P rep. By its Principal Secretary and Four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Kasi Nageswar Rao For Sri Palle Nageswar Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to register cases against the petitioners on the complaints to be given by the subscribers/depositors of Sri Sailatha Chit Funds Private Limited and Srilatha Financiers. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are the brother, wife and the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1. The father of petitioners 1 and 2 late Venkata Narayana has established a chit fund company in the name and style of M/s Sri Sailatha Chit Funds Private Limited in the year 1995 at Vijayawada and also another financial company by name M/s Srilatha Financiers in the year 2002-2003. The said Venkata Narayana died in an accident on 10.03.2009. The petitioners averred that they have nothing to do with the chit fund business of late Venkata Narayana. The petitioners apprehend registration of cases at the instance of the subscribers/depositors of the chits pertaining to the business conducted by the said late Venkata Narayana. On the complaints given by some of the subscribers, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.295 dated 09.06.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.393 dated 02.09.2009 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 attaching the family properties. Petitioner No.1 filed Writ Petition No.27441 of 2009 and the sister of petitioner No.1 filed Writ Petition No.20940 of 2009 questioning the said G.Os. The said writ petitions are stated to be pending. When some of the criminal complaints were registered, petitioner No.1 has approached this Court seeking quashing of the said complaints. In the present case, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents not to register the cases on the basis of the reports lodged in connection with the business conducted by the late father of petitioners 1 and 2. This Court, while issuing notice before admission, passed an order on 31.12.2009, directing respondent No.1 to consider representation dated 08.12.2009 of the petitioners. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that their clients cannot be held criminally liable for non-payment of the amounts by late Venkata Narayana. In my opinion, a writ petition of the nature as the present one cannot be entertained because the power of the police to register a criminal case is governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). If on a report lodged by an aggrieved party, the police have reason to believe that an offence is committed, they are bound to register a case. This Court cannot curtail such a power of the police. If a person is aggrieved by registration of any case, he is entitled to avail the remedies available to him under the Code. However, in anticipation of registration of cases, no person can be permitted to prevent the police from exercising their powers. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.37466 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st July, 2010 vrn