THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dated this the 8th day of October 2009. Writ Petition No. 17044 of 2009. Between: Ravuri Venkateshwar Rao. ……..Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner of Plice, Hyderabad city, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. And 2 others. …….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Petition No. 17044 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue an order or writ more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not taking any action in Cr.No. 198 of 2009 of Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take necessary action in Cr.No. 198 of 2009 and to arrest the accused in the said crime. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the marriage of Ravuri Raghuram who is the son of the petitioner was performed with one Bandla Ajitha on 4.11.2007 and that the marriage was not consummated as the said Ajitha did not co-operate. On 18.11.2007, the son of the petitioner by name Ravuri Raghuram went to USA for his studies and also for making arrangements for visa to his wife Ajitha and that when the wife of his son was asked to appear for interview at US Embassy on 17.12.2007, she did not attend for the same as she furnished a fake experience certificate. Thereafter the wife of his son Ajitha went to her parents house and filed a private complaint before the JFCM, Bodhan by making false allegations and pursuant to the complaint, the police Varni registered a case in Cr.No. 175 of 2007 under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC on 29.12.2007 and that his son also filed FCOP No. 26 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad for annulment of marriage between him and the said Ajitha. It is further stated that as the criminal case filed by Ajitha at Bodhan is beyond the jurisdiction of Bodhan JFCM Court, himself and others filed Crl.P.No. 8417 of 2008 before this Court to quash the proceedings and this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the said crime and while so, Ajitha also filed DVC.No. 2 of 2008 on the file of Addl. JFCM at Nizamabad against him and others with false allegations. It is further stated that on 21.6.2009 at about 11.30 am Bandla Satyanarayana and his family members came to his house for compromise talks and when the petitioner refused for the proposal, the said Satyanarayana and others criminally trespassed into his house and abused them in filthy language and also beat him and by force got executed a promissory note for Rs. 50,00,000/- in the name of Ajitha and when his neighbours intervened, they fled away. Then he lodged a private complaint before the XI Addl. CMM, Hyderabad on 24.6.2009 and the same was referred to the concerned police and his complaint was registered as Cr.No. 198 of 2009 under Sections 327, 307, 420, 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and that the police also recorded his statement and also the statement of his wife. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the crime was registered on 7.7.2009, the 3rd respondent is not taking any steps to arrest the accused and in spite of his several requests, the 3rd respondent failed to take any action against the accused and when he insisted the 3rd respondent, he again issued a notice dt. 29.7.2009 asking him to come to the police with documents and witnesses. The petitioner states that though the offences registered against the accused are cognizable offences, the 3rd respondent intentionally is not taking any action against the accused and on the other hand, he helped the police Varni in arresting his son Raghuram. Hence, the present writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Home on instructions from the 3rd respondent submits that in Cr.No. 198 of 2009 registered for the offences under Sections 327, 307, 420, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC three witnesses have been examined and their detailed statements are recorded. He further submits that the 3rd respondent sent two notices to the petitioner on 10.7.2009 and on 20.9.2009 to produce eyewitnesses and connected documents, but so far the petitioner did not produce the witnesses and the documents and as such the matter is still under investigation. The grievance of the petitioner though the Cr.No. 198 of 2009 was registered against the accused for the cognizable offences, the 3rd respondent intentionally is not taking any action against the accused. On the other hand, the submission of the Government Pleader for Home is that three witnesses have already been examined and the case is under investigation. Having regard to the submissions of the counsel for the parties and having regard to the nature of offences registered against the accused in Cr.No. 198 of 2009, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to proceed with the investigation and take necessary action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 8.10.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Petition No. 17044 of 2009 Dated this the 8th day of October 2009.