IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.5925 of 2007 Between: Ali Bhai and another. … Petitioners And: Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.A.Muzeeb. Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 6 in acting on the petitioners’ complaint, dated 25-1-2007, as illegal and to direct the respondents to put the petitioners in possession of the property bearing House No.4-12, Plot No.10, Sulaman Nagar, Prem Nagar Colony, Hafeezpet, Hyderabad. According to the petitioners, when they sought to give complaint to the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, he refused to receive the same and, accordingly, they approached respondent No.3 with the complaint that certain third parties, in order to grab their property, trespassed into Plot No.10 on 15-10- 2006; and that on the complaint filed by them, the Police registered Crime No.424 of 2006 for the offence under Section 447 IPC. It is further stated that till today no land grabber was arrested. The grievance of the petitioners is that no action was taken on the said complaint. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Miyapur Police Station, it is, inter alia, stated that the complaint given by the petitioners on 5-11-2006 was registered as Crime No.424 of 2006 for the offence under Section 447 IPC; that the investigation officer requested the petitioners, through notice issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C., and also by making phone calls, to produce relevant documents, but they did not co- operate with the investigation officer; that the petitioners neither turned up with the original documents nor appeared before the investigation officer; that the investigation disclosed that the property, which the petitioners claims as belonging to them, belongs to their sister; that in Survey No.80 of Hafeezpet, where the disputed property is situated, no single plot owner is having the registered documents; and that the transactions in that area were held through unregistered and notarized documents only. It is further stated that after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, final report was filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, on 12-1-2007 referring the complaint of the petitioners as lacking evidence. With regard to complaint dated 25-1-2007, the Inspector of Police stated that he has not received the said complaint; that complaint dated 25-1-2007 sent to the Chief Minister’s office was forwarded by the Commissioner of Police to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Balanagar, for enquiry; and that the latter submitted his report on 12-2-2007. The facts referred to above show that complaint dated 25-1-2007 is only with reference to the inaction of the Police relating to their earlier complaint dated 5-11-2006. As noted above, in respect of the said complaint, the Police have filed final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 12-1-2007. If the petitioners felt aggrieved by the said final report, it was open to them to file a protest petition in the said case. The petitioners, therefore, cannot insist that a fresh case be registered in respect of the same incident, with reference to which a criminal case registered, was closed. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:10-7-2009 MNR