IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21868 of 2007 Between: Koppisetti Venkata Surya Prasad … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21868 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the writ petition. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in registering cases on representations dated 05.07.2007 and 24.07.2007 lodged by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. According to the petitioner, in connection with an attack made by one Sagi Rama Chandra Raju and his followers on 05.07.2007, he lodged a report before respondent No.2. As no action was taken, he is stated to have submitted a representation on 24.07.2007 to respondent No.1. Complaining that no case was registered, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he denied receipt of the abovementioned report and representation. But, it is, however, stated that on 12.07.2007, the petitioner lodged a report, which was registered as Crime No.126 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and that during the investigation, as it was revealed that the dispute was civil in nature, he obtained permission from the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kovvur vide proceedings dated 29.09.2007 for referring the complaint of the petitioner as civil in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far his client has not received any notice on the proposed report. He also submitted that the stand taken by the police that they have not received the earlier report and representation of the petitioner is incorrect. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that she is not aware of the present stage of the proceedings and whether the police have filed the report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, as stated in their counter affidavit. As regards the grievance of the petitioner against non- registration of the criminal case on his purported report dated 05.07.2007, it is not possible for this Court to give a finding as to whether the police have received the said report or not. The petitioner is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with regard thereto. With regard to the filing of the report pertaining to Crime No.126 of 2007, in view of expiry of more than 2 ½ years from the time of filing of the counter affidavit, I do not find any reason for the police not to file their report before the jurisdictional Magistrate till now. If such a report has not been filed so far, respondent No.2 is directed to file the same before the Magistrate concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to file protest petition before the Magistrate against the proposed report. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.28354 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.06.2010. ES