IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22617 of 2007 Between: Yerupula Yadagiri … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Venu Madhav for Sri C. Hari Preeth 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.22617 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in registering crime in pursuance of reference made by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), as illegal. Heard Sri K. Venu Madhav representing Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Shamirpet Police Station, in which it is stated that on the reference made by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, crime No.238 of 2007 was registered and when the accused were produced for judicial remand, the learned Magistrate returned the remand report stating that the offence took place at Yadagirigutta and Section 494 being non-cognizable offence, he directed the Station House Officer to explain as to how he treated it as cognizable offence. After complying with the objection, the remand report was resubmitted to the court on 13.11.2007 on which date the learned Magistrate passed order stating that A1, A2, A4 to A7 and A9 were produced before him at 6.30 p.m. on 13.11.2007 and the offence alleged against the accused under Sections 109, 120-B and 494 IPC are cognizable and non- cognizable in nature as per amendment to Cr.P.C. In view of the same, while setting the said accused at liberty, the matter was left to the petitioner for filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be closed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdictional Magistrate to ensure that the offence against the accused is taken cognizance or to question the order of the learned Magistrate in refusing to take cognizance of the offence. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.29396 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.04.2008 ES