IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12463 of 2008 Between: 1 P.Anand Rao S/o.Late P.Purushottam H.No.9-4-84/150, Kakatiya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. 2 G.Sudha Rani W/o.Paul Victor, H.No.9-4-84/150, Kakatiya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, (West Zone) Bazarghat, Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector of Police, Langarhouse Police Station, Hyderabad. 4 The Station House Officer, Langarhouse Police Station, 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the complaints made by the petitioners dated 1.4.2008 and 4.4.2008, 2.6.2008, 4.6.2008, 5.6.2008 and 8.6.2008 and consequently direct the respondents to register a crime basing on the above mention complaints forthwith and pass other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The petitioners allege to have made complaints dated 1.4.2008, 4.4.2008, 2.6.2008, 4.6.2008, 5.6.2008 and 8.6.2008 to the 3rd respondent, alleging coercion and other conduct of a cognizable nature by two of his sons (1st petitioner’s) i.e., P. Prasad Raju and P. Rajesh Henry. No action is alleged to have been taken by the 3rd respondent on the petitioners’ complaints including action to register the complaints though they disclose commission of a cognizable offence. In the circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court, in substance, seeking a Mandamus to the 3rd respondent to register the complaints. The law is too well settled to require reiteration. The petitioners have a plurality of opportunities under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and other provisions thereof. They may prefer a complaint to the Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police as the case may be, against the inaction of the officer-in-charge of the police station in registering the complaints, disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. The petitioners may also pursue remedy of preferring a private complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. In view of the availability of such a statutory alternative efficacious remedies, the discretionary remedy of Mandamus, this Court is not inclined to grant. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate statutory remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 17.6.2008 cvm