IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3017 of 2008 Between: S.V. Shankar Reddy, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 17, Jagruti Shines, R.R. Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Station House Officer, P.S. Toopran, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R. Satyanarayana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : GP for Home The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in registering the case and issuing the First Information Report based on complaint dated 27.07.2007 against Mr. Lokeshwar Rao as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. Heard Sri R. Satyanarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The only grievance of the petitioner, as projected at the hearing by his counsel, is that though on 27.07.2007, a complaint was filed before the respondent, no action has been taken so far to register a case against one Mr. Lokeswara Rao, who allegedly interfered with his possession and enjoyment over an extent of Acs.5.00 of land. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, at the hearing, stated that the property in dispute was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Andhra Pradesh State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and on the complaint made by the said Corporation, a crime has been registered against the petitioner with Crime No. 14 of 2007. She further submitted that immediately on receipt of the petitioner’s complaint, a GD entry was made and since the respondent was satisfied that no cognizable offence was committed, no crime has been registered. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds namely; 1) the petitioner failed to make Mr. Lokeswara Rao against whom he is seeking registration of a crime, as party to the writ petition and in his absence, no direction, which would be likely to affect his interest, can be granted by this Court; and 2) if the petitioner has a legitimate grievance against the respondent for not registering a crime on his compliant, he is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as held by the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India[1]. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3921 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 24th March, 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171