JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st, 2nd and 7th respondents to initiate criminal proceedings against respondents 3 to 6 after due enquiry and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. 2. Petitioner executed an agreement for sale with the 3rd and 8th respondents, to purchase 7 cents of dry land in Survey No. 523/1 [475/2-29] of Punalur Village belonged to the latter. Originally, the entire property consisted of 86 cents of land belonged to the father of respondents Nos. 3 to 6. Out of the said 86 cents, about 20 cents of property was purchased by the 8th respondent, and a half cent was purchased by the petitioner herein. The above agreement is executed by paying Rs. 3 lakhs as advance to the 3rd and 8th respondents. Later, 3rd and 8th respondents violated the agreement. Thereupon, petitioner filed O.S. No. 127 of 2011 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakara. Allegedly, an injunction order was passed against the 3rd and 8th respondents not to alienate the plaint schedule property. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 approached the 2nd respondent for mutation of 86 cents of land mentioned above. However, the Village Officer denied the request for mutation, since the properties are already transferred in the name of the petitioner and the 8th respondent. According to the petitioner, by making false representation, they approached the 2nd respondent to effect mutation over the entire 86 cents of land by filing an affidavit. The said 86 cents of land include the property purchased by the petitioner, 8th respondent and covered under Ext.P1 suit. As per Ext.P3, the deponents undertake that the property covered under the affidavit are exclusively in their name and has no liability. Moreover, it is also undertaken that they are liable if any false statement was sworn. Therefore, by filing such an affidavit, respondents 3 to 6 committed various offences under the Indian Penal Code, and they are liable to be proceeded with. 3. In that view of the matter, petitioner has approached respondents 1, 2 and 7 seeking to take action against the party respondents. However, According to the petitioner, the 7th respondent has stated that he has no power to initiate any criminal proceedings. 3. In that view of the matter, petitioner has approached respondents 1, 2 and 7 seeking to take action against the party respondents. However, According to the petitioner, the 7th respondent has stated that he has no power to initiate any criminal proceedings. It is in this background, seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed. 4. Seventh respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that respondents Nos. 3 to 6 have filed an application before the 2nd respondent for effecting mutation of 86 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 475(4A) of Punalur Village. However, it is stated that even though the petitioner alleges that respondents 3 to 6 filed a false affidavit before the 2nd respondent, no communication was received from the 2nd respondent regarding any false affidavit. Only after receipt of a complaint from the 2nd respondent, the 7th respondent can initiate action against the person/persons who submitted the false affidavit. On receipt of notice from this Court, 7th respondent verified the details of the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 6 and 8. On enquiry, it was revealed that there was some financial transactions between the 3rd respondent and the 8th respondent and the 3rd respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner towards security for settling the liability of the 3rd respondent to the 8th respondent. It is also revealed that the 3rd respondent and his son aged 13 were attacked by the petitioner and Crime No. 1936/11 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 427, 324, 326, 354, and 308 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is also stated that Crime No. 1346/12 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 268 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Again, Crime No. 1486/12 was also registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 02.12.2011 in Crime No. 1936/11 and was taken to Taluk Hospital, Punalur for medical examination. 5. It is further submitted, petitioner escaped from police custody while he was under observation of doctors. Hence, Crime No. 1942/11 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 225(b) of IPC. Crime Nos. 1847/11, 33/12 were registered on the basis of the private complaint filed by the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted, petitioner escaped from police custody while he was under observation of doctors. Hence, Crime No. 1942/11 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 225(b) of IPC. Crime Nos. 1847/11, 33/12 were registered on the basis of the private complaint filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that 7th respondent will take proper action in the event of a proper complaint from the competent authority. The 7th respondent cannot register a crime against respondents 3 to 6 on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties, as narrated above. 7. The facts discussed above would show that enough and more cases are registered against the petitioner by the police and the same are pending consideration. Now the case projected by the petitioner is that an affidavit is filed before the 2nd respondent for effecting mutation of the entire extent of 86 cents of property, whereas a portion of the property was transferred to the petitioner and the 8th respondent. Therefore, the same is a false affidavit liable to be proceeded for various offences constituted under the Indian Penal Code. In the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, it is stated that the 7th respondent is not aware whether such an affidavit is filed before the 2nd respondent and without forwarding a complaint and necessary documents by the 2nd respondent, 7th respondent is unable to register a crime against respondents 3 to 6. 8. However, fact remains that this case was pending before this Court for the past four years. It was always open to the petitioner to approach appropriate court of law, seeking necessary reliefs as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, by filing a private complaint. Petitioner has not chosen to do so. It is also not discernible, whether an affidavit was filed by respondents 3 to 6 before the 2nd respondent for effecting mutation of the property. Even though Ext.P3 document, alleged to be an affidavit submitted by respondents 3 to 6, which is produced before the 2nd respondent, there are no convincing evidence to rely upon the same in order to issue any direction to the 2nd respondent. Even though Ext.P3 document, alleged to be an affidavit submitted by respondents 3 to 6, which is produced before the 2nd respondent, there are no convincing evidence to rely upon the same in order to issue any direction to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I do not find any reason to exercise the discretionary power conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the 2nd respondent to file any complaint against respondents 3 to 6. However, if the petitioner is advised so, liberty of the petitioner is left open to file any suitable complaint before any appropriate court of law. The writ petition is dismissed, however, subject to the observation made above.