THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 2165 of 2010 and Suo Motu CC No. 931 of 2010 Common order: Assailing the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in taking action on his complaint dated 19.11.2009 and registering a case against respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner filed the writ petition. As in spite of granting time, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 neither filed counter nor appeared before the Court, this Court on 01.07.2010 directed the Registry to issue notice of contempt calling upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt. Pursuant to the said order, the Registry initiated suo motu contempt proceedings in the afore-mentioned suo motu contempt case. Today when the matter is taken up, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared. Respondent No.1, namely the Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Anantapur, in the counter stated he made thorough enquiries and found that no complaint, much less complaint dated 19.11.2002 was received by them. He further stated that the petitioner earlier, complaining inaction of the respondents on his complaint dated 12.03.2009, filed W.P. No. 5688 of 2009, and this Court by order dated 07.07.2009, disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. That his predecessor had earlier made preliminary enquiry into the complaint dated 12.03.2009, forwarded by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Anantapur Division, and as the complaint did not contain any cognizable contends, he did not take any action. At any rate, he submitted that the disputes between the petitioner and unofficial respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are purely civil in nature, and that he never interfered with any civil dispute. Since the petitioner is said to have not made any complaint to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Since the main writ petition itself is dismissed, there is no need to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the suo motu contempt case is also dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 16th August, 2010 KSR