IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11795 of 2009 Between: Smt.Thota Hymavathi W/o.Sri Bhumaiah R/o.H.No.13-2-235, Matwada, Warangal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer, Hasanparthy Police Station, Hasanparthy, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: In this Writ Petition, a peculiar relief is claimed by the petitioner viz., that a fresh investigation be made into the cause of the death of her son after Sessions Case No.16 of 2005, which underwent a full-fledged trial, ended in the acquittal of the accused and this Court confirmed the said judgment vide Criminal Appeal No.1732 of 2006, dated 25- 08-2008. In my considered view, when once the Criminal Case is closed after a full-fledged trial, there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.”), for commencement of fresh investigation by the Police. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under: “Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the Officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).” In my considered view, placing reliance on the abovementioned provision is wholly misplaced. The said provision applies to cases, where the trial is not commenced, and the case is not disposed of. In the absence of any specific provision, under which the Police have the obligation to conduct fresh investigation, it is not possible for this Court to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, if any such direction is given, it may lead to anomalous situation where the Police will be burdened with repeated investigations in connection with each Criminal Case even after its disposal. Such a course is neither feasible nor practicable. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.15193 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th June, 2009 LUR