IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6929 of 2008 Between: Maleti Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari at Eluru & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Raja Sekhar Counsel for respondents 1 & 2: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6929 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not conducting investigation into crime No.249 of 2007, which was registered on 19.11.2007, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct investigation into the said crime in accordance with law. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that respondent No.3 suppressing the fact that the property comprising 316 square yards situated in R.S.No.210 of Ward No.5 of Palakol, West Godavari District was already in attachment in E.P.No.53 of 2006 in O.S.No.199 of 2005 sold the same to him under registered sale deeds dated 07.06.2006 and 05.07.2006 after receiving a valuable consideration of Rs.11,96,500/-, that he therefore approached respondent No.2 and filed a complaint against respondent No.3, that when the former failed to take action, he filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol against respondent No.3 and that the said Magistrate forwarded the complaint to respondent No.2 for investigation. The petitioner further stated that thereafter respondent No.2 registered crime No.249 of 2007 on 19.11.2007 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he approached respondent No.2 on many occasions for expediting the investigation, he has not been taking any action and on the other hand, when he went to the police station on 27.11.2007 he saw respondent No.3 being present there and respondent No.2 instead of arresting him started threatening him to withdraw the case. Heard Sri S. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. On the petitioner’s own showing, on the reference of complaint by the jurisdictional Magistrate to respondent No.2 under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), respondent No.2 registered a crime. If the petitioner formed an opinion that respondent No.2 has not been vigilant in conducting investigation or colluding with respondent No.3, he shall always be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with appropriate application for necessary directions to be given to respondent No.2 to conduct proper investigation and file report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. I do not therefore see any reason whatsoever for the petitioner to rush to this Court and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an effective alternative remedy is available to him. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate directions and on the petitioner filing such an application, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.9070 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.04.2008 ES Note:- A copy of this order to be communicated to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol.