Judgment : 1. The two petitioners herein seek a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent, namely the Station House Officer, Sathyavedu Police Station, Chittoor District in not registering the complaint lodged by them on 22.08.2013 so far and not taking any action against Respondents 2 and 3 herein, as illegal and bad in law. 2. It appears, there were some disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and the unofficial Respondents 2 and 3 on the other. Civil suit, O.S. No. 66 of 2003 instituted by the petitioners on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Sathyavedu seeking for a mandatory injunction, has been dismissed by that Court on 06.09.2006. Thereafter, the present petitioners have preferred an Appeal, A.S.No. 4 of 2011 before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Srikalahasthi, which Court allowed their Appeal on 18.07.2013 and a mandatory injunction has been granted by the Senior Civil Judge, restraining Respondents 2 and 3 herein and their men and agents, from interfering with the plaint schedule properties, over which title was declared in favour of the petitioners herein by the said judgment. On behalf of the unofficial respondents, Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel, who entered appearance, would submit that a Second Appeal has been preferred to this Court against the judgment rendered by the Senior Civil Judge and the matter is very likely to be heard in a short time from now. 3. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, who has received instructions from the Station House Officer, Sathyavedu Police Station, Chittoor District, would submit that the writ petitioners have not lodged any such complaint dated 22.08.2013 with them and there is no record available with the police in respect thereof. 4. Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the police have not granted any acknowledgment for the complaint lodged by the petitioners and hence, the petitioners are unable to produce the same. 5. 4. Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the police have not granted any acknowledgment for the complaint lodged by the petitioners and hence, the petitioners are unable to produce the same. 5. If the police are not registering any complaint, in accordance with Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in spite of disclosing a cognizable offence, under subsection (3) of Section 154, any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of the police to register the complaint, may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided under the said Code. 6. It is therefore, more than evident that the petitioners have a very effective alternative remedy of lodging a complaint by post with the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, under sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code, in case the averment made by them in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition that the 1st respondent Station House Officer, Sathyavedu Police Station has declined to accept the said complaint, is true. It is therefore, only appropriate that the petitioners should avail such an effective alternative remedy before a writ of mandamus is sought for from this Court. 7. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. No costs. 8. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.