IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2231 of 2008 Between: K. Manga Devi … Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Y.V. Srinivas Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2231 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not taking appropriate action on the basis of complaint dated 13.01.2008 given by the petitioner and the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in colluding with respondent No.5 for executing the divorce agreement dated 26.11.2007 in the police station by coercion, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the basis of complaint dated 13.01.2008. Heard Sri Y.V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner’s grievance as projected in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that she and respondent No.5, who were married and whose marital relations went into rough weather, fed up with each other thereafter, that respondent No.5 prevailed over respondent Nos.3 and 4 and forcibly made her to execute a traditional divorce in the Narsapur police station and that she filed complaint dated 13.01.2008 before respondent Nos.1 and 2 against respondent Nos.3 to 5, but no action has been taken by them. No counter-affidavit has been filed. Since the grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint filed by her before respondent Nos.1 and 2 has not evoked, action deserved to be taken in accordance with law at the hands of respondent Nos.1 and 2, she is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others[1] held as under: “1. If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed. 2. It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforementioned provisions.” In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with proper complaint. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2866 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.03.2008 ES [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171