Rompicharla Yesupadam v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.37093 of 2017 ORDER:

Mr K.G.V.N.Pundareekakshudu, counsel for the petitioner after arguing the writ petition for considerable length of time is unable to satisfy the Court that the complaint filed as Annexure-P1 in fact has been sent to 3rd respondent and was duly acknowledged by 3rd respondent. In spite of the complaint referring to commission of offences, no action has been taken by the 3rd respondent.

To look at the grievance of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must satisfactorily show filing of the complaint and acknowledgement of complaint in one form or the other by the 3rd respondent and thereafter complain inaction. The papers relied on by petitioner are either addressed or acknowledged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jangareddygudem.

The Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submits that a complaint at the first instance was received on 07.07.2017, a GD entry was made, matter was investigated and as investigation revealed that a civil dispute is brought to the notice of Police, the complainant was

informed. He denies the acknowledgment of Annexure-P1 by 3rd respondent.

Having regard to the above circumstances at this stage of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner, if so advised can send the complaint or continuous threat the petitioner is perceiving, by registered post acknowledgment due, to 3rd respondent and this Court has no reason to doubt that the 3rd respondent will look into the matter as required and do the needful. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

________________ S. V. BHATT, J Dt: 06.11.2017 dv