HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.25108 of 2010 Date: November 24, 2010 Between: Chennupati Venkata Durga Rao, S/o.Nageshwar Rao, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others ... Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents action is illegal, unjustice according to law and subsequently direct the respondents to withdraw the false cases against the petitioner or else to register the case under specified sections which attract to that particular offence coming under said complaints as registered by Narayanguda Police Station or alter the Sections 364A to either 365 or 343, 395 to 384 or any other Sections attracts the allegation in the complaints and consequently club all the cases together for joint trial and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” Based on the complaints filed, various crimes have been registered against the petitioner in different Police Stations. It is the case of the petitioner that such complaints are false and incorrect. The present writ petition cannot be maintained for more than one reason. Though the petitioner alleges that the complaints made against him are frivolous, he did not choose to make the complainants as party-respondents in the writ petition. Moreover, it appears, the investigating officers of the Police Stations concerned have already made investigations on the complaints received. Whether such complaints are true or not is a matter which cannot be determined by this court in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 24, 2010 MRR