ORDER : HARINATH. N., J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on part of respondent No.6 in considering and registering the complaint filed by her against respondents Nos.7 to 9 for acts of sexual harassment and repeated threats to the petitioner's life. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as the Legal Manager in Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Devastanam, Ahobilam and that she was entrusted with the duty of assisting the Director in all the legal matters connected with land administration of the Devastanam. 3. The petitioner was subsequently transferred from the Devastanam to Matham by 8 th respondent who is the chairman of Ahobila Matham. 4. It is submitted that such action was in collusion with 7 th respondent and that it is alleged that the petitioner was escalating the instances of sexual harassment by the 7 th respondent. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have been physically and mentally harassed by the 7 th respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner had escalated the misdeeds of 7 th respondent to the higher authorities of the mutt. It is also alleged in the petition that abusive posting in the Facebook assassinating the character of the petitioner were also made. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation to the 6 th respondent on 17.09.2024. It is admitted that though a complaint was filed by the petitioner, the 6 th respondent did not register any case and also did not give any acknowledgment for the complaint submitted against the 7 th respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner has also received threatening calls from various numbers allegedly warning the petitioner not to proceed with the complaint against respondent Nos.7 to 9. It is submitted that the petitioner also submitted a complaint to 2 nd respondent on 17.11.2024 and 3 rd respondent. A further representation dated 03.12.2024 was made to 2 nd respondent. However, there was no progress in registering the complaint. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the bounden statutory duty of the police to register a complaint soon after receipt of a complaint from a woman alleging offences against the woman. Ideally the police ought to have registered a zero FIR and carried out investigation. However, there was no progress in registering the complaint. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the bounden statutory duty of the police to register a complaint soon after receipt of a complaint from a woman alleging offences against the woman. Ideally the police ought to have registered a zero FIR and carried out investigation. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the police ought to have taken a proactive action in crimes against woman. However, the inaction on the part of the respondent police in ignoring the complaint of the petitioner speaks volumes of the manner in which the police have shown their insensitivity towards the complaint filed by the petitioner. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that a detailed counter is filed and the written instructions as received from the concerned Officer are also placed on record. It is submitted that the petitioner did not submit any written complaint to the 6 th respondent and that the petitioner had submitted a complaint to the 2 nd respondent. 8. The said complaint was endorsed to the 4 th respondent for enquiry and that on instructions of the 4 th respondent, the petitioner was also called to the police station on 24.09.2024 and the respondents 5 and 6 had contacted the respondents 7 to 9 over phone in presence of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner herself had submitted a written statement by expressing her satisfaction over the enquiry on her representation dated 25.11.2024 and 03.12.2024. 9. The counter filed by the 6 th respondent is referred to by the learned Government Pleader during the course of her arguments and submits that in so far as the complaint relating to the alleged social media postings against the petitioner, the contents of the complaint would amount to offences under Section 66A of the IT Act and those offences were struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India , [ (2015) 5 SCC 1 ] and that the 6 th respondent has also obtained legal opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The alleged offences are punishable under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act and Section 500 read with Section 499 of IPC. Union of India , [ (2015) 5 SCC 1 ] and that the 6 th respondent has also obtained legal opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The alleged offences are punishable under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act and Section 500 read with Section 499 of IPC. A private complaint ought to be filed by the petitioner if the petitioner is so aggrieved with the said postings which amounted to offences under Section 499. 10. It is also submitted in the counter that the complaint has filed a copy of the complaint along with the annexures to the writ petition dated 22.04.2024. In the said complaint also there are no allegations against the other respondents. The 6 th respondent has further submitted that the repeated allegations of the alleged derogatory, abusive and defamatory postings in the social media, particularly the Facebook were verified by the 6 th respondent and that he could not find any such abusive postings against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a complaint dated 17.09.2024 which evidently is unsigned by the petitioner and is now made a part of the pleadings only to maintain the writ petition. The Learned Government Pleader also submits that the police have completed preliminary enquiry as mandated under Section 173(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS) and have ascertained that a false complaint is lodged against the respondents. 11. The learned Government Pleader for the State relied on Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary , [2020 SCC OnLine AP 562] , this Court held at para 34 reads as follows : 34. Similarly, in AlquePadamsee and others v. Union of India and Others the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows – “8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions:- If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained ? in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed. It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the ? aforesaid provisions. So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the ? aforesaid provisions. So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. The ?Government concerned would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 12. (Emphasis supplied) A reading of this judgment would make it clear that the writ was filed because the police did not register the FIR and ?hence directions were sought. 13. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 6. Perused the material on record. 14. The grievance of the petitioner that the police have not acted upon her complaint and that no investigation was done on her complaint is unfounded as seen from the record. The material on record reflects that the police have conducted preliminary enquiry as per Section 173(3) of BNSS. 15. The investigating officer has categorically stated that they have conducted preliminary enquiry after the complaint was forwarded by the respondent No.4 and they found no evidence for the allegations alleged in the complaint. 16. In such circumstances, the petitioner would have to invoke the appropriate provisions of BNSS and take necessary steps before a competent Court. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner is concerned to declare the inaction on part of the respondent No.6 in registering a complaint against the respondents 7 to 9 is concerned the issue has been adequately addressed by the 6 th respondent and the same is evident from the counter and the written instructions produced before the Court. 17. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.