HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 17067 OF 2011 . DATED 21st June, 2011 BETWEEN Uppalapati Sri Rama Murthy …Petitioner And The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru range,Eluru, WG District and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 17067 of 2011 ORDER: Heard. Perused the case file. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mr. Velagala Nagi Reddy, seventh respondent herein, is doing unauthorized finance business for the last fifteen years. The petitioner alleged that the seventh respondent is cheating the public and he is not returning the promissory notes and other surety documents to the borrowers after receiving the entire loan amount including interest from them and is making his borrowers to suffer irreparable loss. The petitioner alleged that he also borrowed an amount of Rs.84,000/- from the seventh respondent after executing promissory notes and mortgaging registration documents pertaining to 10 cents of agricultural land and three empty signed conquest papers. He further alleged that he repaid the entire loan amount with interest within six days, but, the seventh respondent has not returned the promissory notes and other documents. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of returning the promissory notes and the registration documents mortgaged with him, the seventh respondent issued legal notice on 30.09.2010 demanding him to pay an amount of Rs.3,10,600/-. It is his further case that the seventh respondent filed suit in OS.No. 27 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, for recovery of the aforesaid amount from him and he is contesting the said suit. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the seventh respondent and his associates are threatening to kill him and that there is danger to his life and liberty from them and hence, he filed a representation before the first respondent on 27.5.2011 seeking protection to his life and liberty from the hands of the seventh respondent and his associates. However, the official respondents have not taken any action against the seventh respondent and his associates. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a consequential direction to the respondent authorities to protect his life and liberty from the hands of the seventh respondent and his associates. From the above factual matrix, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to money transaction in between the petitioner and the seventh respondent. The petitioner is contesting the suit filed by the seventh respondent for recovery of money from him. The petitioner also invoked the criminal jurisdiction by filing private complaint under Section 190 (1)(A) Cr.P.C. against the seventh respondent and the same is pending consideration on the file of the learned Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. In the said complaint, the petitioner has sought the relief which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. In as much as the petitioner has already invoked the criminal jurisdiction, he cannot maintain two parallel proceedings at a time in the Court of law, for the very same relief. It is well established principle of law that a person, normally, cannot be allowed to avail of two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter at the same time. Hence, no direction can be given to the respondents-police authorities to take action against the seventh respondent. Apprehending danger to his life and liberty, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 27.5.2011 before the first respondent. It is his grievance that no action has been taken by the respondents till date. Needless to observe, the respondent- police, no doubt, after conducting enquiry/investigation shall take necessary steps on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Only few days have elapsed since the date of filing the representation. It seems that even without giving breathing time to the respondent-police, the petitioner has approached this Court. In my considered opinion, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 21st June, 2011. Msnro