JUDGMENT T. Vinod Kumar, J. - The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in particular 4th respondent herein in registering crime based on a complaint made by the petitioner dated 23.07.2020, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The above case is taken up for hearing today i.e., 13.08.2020, through Video Conferencing. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the writ averments. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has forwarded to this Court by e-mail, written instructions dated 11.08.2020 under the signature of Detective Inspector of Police, Banjarahills Police Station, Hyderabad. By the aforesaid written instructions, it is stated that the petitioner had lodged a complaint dated 23.07.2020 before the 4th respondent authority, which was received by the said authority on 25.07.2020, wherein it is stated that one Salman Khan and others published an advertisement on the face book that one Smt. Yasmeen Begum is suffering from Covid-19 and requested the general public to deposit amounts into the account of said lady. It is stated that pursuant to the said request on the face book, the petitioner deposited Rs.15,000/- into the said account and general public also deposited huge amounts in the account of said lady, thereon the said person with a mala fide intention succeeded to withdraw the amount from the account of the said lady. 6. By the aforesaid written instructions, it is stated that pursuant to the said complaint made by the petitioner herein, the 4th respondent police authority made an entry into the General Diary. During the course of enquiry, the 4th respondent authority requested the petitioner to produce the relevant documents for the purpose of enquiry and necessary action, but the petitioner failed to do so. Thereupon, the 4th respondent authority issued a notice dated 05.08.2020 to the petitioner asking him to produce the relevant documents. In spite of that, the petitioner did not produce the relevant documents to the 4th respondent authority to cause further enquiry in the matter. Thereupon, the 4th respondent authority issued a notice dated 05.08.2020 to the petitioner asking him to produce the relevant documents. In spite of that, the petitioner did not produce the relevant documents to the 4th respondent authority to cause further enquiry in the matter. Thereafter, the 4th respondent authority deputed staff to the house of the petitioner at the given address, directing him to serve a notice dated 10.08.2020 to the petitioner informing that the complaint was closed, but at that time, the petitioner was not available at home, as such the deputed staff pasted the said notice informing the petitioner of the action taken on his complaint dated 23.07.2020 on the door of the petitioner's house. 7. Considering the submissions made as above, as the 4th respondent police authority issued a notice dated 10.08.2020 informing the petitioner of the action taken on his complaint made by serving the same through affixture, it is open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to avail remedies in accordance with law, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said communication issued by the 4th respondent authority. 8. After the above order is passed by this court, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is in possession of certain telephone conversations, which the petitioner could not produce before the 4th respondent authority and considering that the offence complained being against society at large, the petitioner may be permitted to file by making a fresh complaint. A reading of the complaint made by the petitioner to the 4th respondent, it is apparent that the petitioner knowledge about the persons named in his complaint and also their activities for long both past and present, as petitioner in the complaint chose to mention the minute details like the bank accounts of such persons to which the monies have been transferred, which could not have been possible unless a person has close acquaintance with such people, and the reason as to why the petitioner maintained relations with the named people. However, the petitioner while making the complaint to the 4th respondent by sending it by post, did not mention about the call data / telephonic conversations between the petitioner and such persons, but simply lodged a complaint without fully disclosing the facts for the reasons best known nor appearing before the 4th respondent to lodge the complaint in person whereat the authority could have recorded his statement by registering crime. Thus, the entire endeavor of the appellant appears to get a case registered against the people named in the complaint for other purposes. Though, this court is not in position to believe the claim being made by the petitioner fully, since it is claimed that the persons named in the complaint had cheated general public by their postings on facebook account seeking money for helping needy, to which many kind hearted people would fall pray, this court is of the view that if the petitioner approaches the 4th respondent authority in person with all the details and makes a complaint afresh, the authority shall look into the same and take necessary action thereon in accordance with law and at the same time also ascertain as to whether the petitioner is approaching the authorities with any oblique motive as well as the complicity of the petitioner, if any. 9. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.