HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28684 of 2010 Date 28.07.2010 Between: C.Balasubramanyam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Patri Ravi Kiran Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: Assistant Government for Home Counsel for the Respondent NO.5 : Sri J.Prabhakar HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28684 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to register the complaint dated 15.10.2009 submitted by the petitioner to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 18.12.2009 and 21.12.2009 respectively. I have heard Sri Patri Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel representing respondent No.5. The petitioner claims to be the Managing Director of a Company called M/s. Western Industries Limited. The petitioner has averred that he has approached respondent No.4 bank for sanction of certain loans and in connection with the said transactions, respondent No.5 has mortgaged his property as a security for sanction of loans in favour of the above mentioned Company. The petitioner has approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 with the above mentioned reports stating that when O.A.No. 250 of 2004 filed by respondent No.4 bank for recovery of loan amounts advanced to the above mentioned Company was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, respondent No.5 has got the security given by him by way of mortgage released from the bank and, thereby, it constituted cheating. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the reports lodged by the petitioner were not registered as crime as the police were satisfied that the allegations contained in the reports did not disclose commission of cognizable offence. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has also taken this Court through the contents of the reports and advanced a similar contention while justifying the action of the police in not registered the case. In my opinion, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties because the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C., if the police have not registered the case. The reason furnished by the police that the reports do not disclose commission of cognizable offence cannot be said to be wholly incorrect. Their action in not registering the case cannot be found fault with in this writ petition. This order, however, should not be understood as this Court giving a final opinion on whether any offence is committed by respondent No.5 or not. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedies under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.No.37286 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:28.07.2010 Usd