ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition came to be filed seeking the following relief: "for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent authorities in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 14.3.2019 is illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, and violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 14.3.2019 forthwith and to pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition show that basing on a report lodged by the petitioner, a case in Crime No. 266 of 2014 came to be registered against her husband and seven others before Pattabhipuram Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After filling of charge sheet, the case was numbered as C.C. No. 698 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. Later, the case was split up and transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur, and re-numbered as C.C. No. 237 of 2018. After a full-fledged trial, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 8, vide judgment dated 31.12.2018. 3. The petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent, who was the Presiding Officer of the trial Court, at the relevant point of time, did not conduct trial in a proper manner and failed to appreciate the evidence on record. She further alleges that the learned Magistrate failed to discuss about the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C., which was added against accused No. 8 during trial, which clearly shows that the judgment was passed without application of mind. She also alleges that the learned Magistrate proceeded with a preconceived notion that a false case has been filed after obtaining divorce, and hence, passed the judgment in a biased manner. She also alleges that the learned Magistrate proceeded with a preconceived notion that a false case has been filed after obtaining divorce, and hence, passed the judgment in a biased manner. The petitioner contends that as the learned Magistrate was partial in deciding the case, it would be necessary to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, though presently he is given posting in the State of Telangana. The petitioner submits that she has submitted a detailed representation dated 14.3.2019 to the 1st respondent-Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court to enquire into the matter, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the High court. 5. At the outset, it is to be noted that if a party is aggrieved by any judgment passed in a calendar case, he or she has a remedy to challenge it before the appellate/revisional Court. Thus, the petitioner is not remediless insofar as the judgment in the above referred C.C. is concerned and she can challenge the same in appeal/revision, as the case may be. 6. In so far as the grievance with regard to the inaction of the 1st respondent-Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court on a complaint made by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer is concerned, it is to be seen that the complaint was made on 14.3.2019. If the allegations made in the said complaint are based on some verifiable material, definitely, the same would be looked into and dealt with on administrative side in due course. This Court does not feel any necessity to issue a direction to the Registrar (Vigilance,) in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to consider such complaint/representation. It is also to be noted that, at times, issuing such positive direction to the Registrar (Vigilance) to consider the complaints/representations made against judicial officers would lead to demoralizing the officers, if the allegations are found to be false. Hence, we see no grounds to entertain this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.