IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10393 of 2008 Between: G.Satyanarayana, S/o. Sri,G.Purna Ranga Rao, APSEEUnion-327-INTUC(Recongnized), Dr.GSR Bhavan,No.6- 1-48/4, Mint Compound, Hyderabad-63,R/o. SLAS Nivas, 30-21-31, Kakani Nagar, Chuttugunta, Vijayawada-04 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police, Govt., of Andhra Pradesh,Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 Sri G.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Mr.G.Achi Reddy, APSEE-Union-327,INTUC, No.6/B, LIGH,Barkatpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respndent in not conducting and concluding the investigation in Cr.No.502 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the 2nd respondent even after lapse of more than one and half year yeilding to the pressure of the 3rd respondent is being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation f judicial precedings and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct and conclude investigation forthwith, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 10393 of 2008 Oral Order: The writ petition is misconceived and more so in the light of the averments in the counter aﬃdavit. It is ﬁled complaining of investigatorial inaction by the respondents in respect of crime No. 502 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Station House Oﬃcer, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad, on a complaint by the petitioner alleging oﬀences under Sections 148, 379, 447, 453, 120-B, 109 read with 149 IPC and under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the third respondent. The 2nd respondent, the Station House Oﬃcer, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad has ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that on receipt of the complaint, a crime No. 502 of 2006 was registered and investigated into. During investigation it is found that a civil suit is pending before the Court and no material has been furnished by the complainant as to the commission of oﬀences. A ﬁnal report was ﬁled on 14-07-2007 before the Court of learned I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad recording that the dispute is ‘civil in nature’. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that the petitioner would take steps to ﬁle a protest petition. That is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner and not by way of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 06-09-2008 pvks