IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.333 of 2006 Between: Gogu Dharmalinga Prasad … Petitioner And Laxminarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-I Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mohammed Zafarullah Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.333 of 2006 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner and his inaction in registering a case on the petitioner’s complaint, as illegal and arbitrary. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that one Vannamreddy Satyandhra Kumar son of Moola Swamy of Bhimavaram filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram against the petitioner and his wife, that in the said complaint it was stated that the petitioner and his wife have not only cheated the complainant, but also various other innocent people promising them to provide jobs in the department of Commercial Taxes wherein the petitioner is an employee and that on the case being referred to him, crime No.231 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 IPC on 31.12.2005. Investigation was commenced and the same was pending and that no arrest was made so far. Respondent No.1 further stated that the petitioner sent a complaint by post on 29.08.2005, that a preliminary enquiry was conducted into the allegations made in the said complaint and that as prima facie, the said allegations are non-cognizable in nature, he summoned the petitioner and the persons mentioned in the complaint and did not take any action, as it was non-cognizable in nature. He also denied summoning of the petitioner through a plain clothed constable and made him to sit in the police station. He denied harassment of the petitioner. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of this writ petition, the police have stopped harassing the petitioner. He, however, submitted that respondent No.1 failed to register the case. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by non-registration of the case, he shall be free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the above observation. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.410 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.07.2009 ES