HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5244 of 2012 Date: March 6, 2012 Between: Pankaj M. Doshi, S/o. late Mansukhlal V. Doshi … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and Others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the report of the petitioner dated 28.12.2011 as illegal and arbitrary and to issue consequential directions to the 2nd respondent to register the aforesaid report of the petitioner. Facts of the case, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are as under: Petitioner is a member of Saurastra Jain Mutually Aided Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. The 3rd respondent, District Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad Urban District, issued notice dated 09.12.2011 vide proceedings No.2823/11/MACS/Credit informing the members of the said Society that a meeting would be conducted at 10.00 a.m., on 28.12.2011 at Parwana Hall, SBH Officers Association, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, for the purpose of conducting elections. On the said date, respondents 4 to 7 herein who are non-members, along with the 3rd respondent, entered into the meeting hall; when petitioner raised an objection as to the presence of non-members of the Society in the meeting, respondents 4 to 7, upon the directions of the 3rd respondent, pushed him down, slapped on his face, caught his turf and kicked him in the stomach; 4th respondent has also threatened him with a knife. It is the case of the petitioner that, narrating the above incident, he submitted report to the 2nd respondent requesting to register the same, but the 2nd respondent has made an entry in the General Diary, but he failed to register crime. It is alleged that, thereafter, he also approached the 1st respondent and submitted report on 29.12.2011; in spite of the same, no steps have been taken. When the matter came up for hearing on the last occasion, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents-Police was directed to obtain instructions. Based on the written instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the 3rd respondent has convened General Body Meeting, as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.31588 of 2011 to conduct elections, by issuing notice dated 02.11.2011. It is submitted that when the petitioner was trying to video-graph the proceedings, he was stopped by the 3rd respondent on the ground that no such permission was granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. It is stated that the said meeting was attended by 129 members and an ad hoc committee was constituted for the purpose of conducting elections. It is categorically stated that all the allegations made by the petitioner are utterly false, baseless and made only in view of the differences among the members of the Society. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when a complaint/report is filed, it is the duty of Police to register crime thereon. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumari V. State (NCT of Delhi) and others[1]. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that only in view of the differences among the members of the Society, this writ petition is filed by impleading the 3rd respondent- District Cooperative Officer as party. It is further submitted that if any differences exist among the members of the Society, it is open to them to workout remedies as provided under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995. It is to be noticed that the primary allegation of the petitioner, as stated in the report dated 28.12.2011 lodged by him, is that respondents 4 to 7 herein have pushed him down, caught hold of his turf and beat him in the meeting of the Society convened on 28.12.2011. It is to be noticed further that enquiry has been conducted based on the said report of the petitioner and the allegations made by him are found to be false and only made in view of the objection raised by the 3rd respondent not to video-graph the proceedings, when the petitioner tried to do so, on the ground that the same is not permitted by this Court in the writ petition referred above. While it true that in the case of Ramesh Kumari (1 supra) as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court has held that Police Officer is duty-bound to register the case on receiving information disclosing cognizable offence, but, in a subsequent judgment in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.[2], the Supreme Court, at paragraph 11, held as under: “In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition so as to admit the same and grant relief as prayed for. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) March 6, 2012 MRR [1] (2006) 2 SCC 677 [2] AIR 2008 SC 907