HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29364 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the action of the respondents in not conducting any investigation into Crime No.121 of 2009, registered on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandivada P.S., Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. Though the petitioner is not the complainant, however, he claims to be the member of Sri Venkateswara Collective Cooperative Farming Society Limited, Illaparru, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District. Petitioner states that one Jeevagunta Joseph Nirmal Karunakar is appointed as an Election Officer to hold elections to Sri Venkateswara Collective Cooperative Farming Society Ltd., for electing its members and that he lodged a complaint on 7.12.2009 stating that while he was in the office of P.A.C.S. Building at Nandivada Village, one B. Nageswara Rao and some hundred members have come to PACS building and threatened the Election Officer/Complainant and have taken away his brief case containing official and personal documents and wrongfully restrained him in the office building by locking the room. Petitioner states that though he is not the complainant, he being a member of the society is aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the respondents in not conducting any investigation into the case. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Gudivada Rural, the 2nd respondent herein. In the counter affidavit, the respondent while denying the various allegations levelled by the petitioner, has stated that the complaint made by the complainant was registered as Crime No. 121 of 2009, on the file of the 1st respondent herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and during the course of investigation, the complainant was examined as L.W.1 and other witnesses were examined as L.Ws. 2 to 8. It is also stated that the enquiries revealed that the entire incident was videographed and A1 to A5 have been arrested on 14.12.2009 and remanded to judicial custody. It is further stated that further investigation into the case is still in progress and some more witnesses are to be examined so as to identify the other accused. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though about 100 persons were involved in the said incident, only five persons have been arrested and no action had been taken against the other accused. Firstly, it is to be noticed that the petitioner is not the complainant. In any event, having regard to the steps taken by the respondents for arresting A1 to A5 and in remanding them to judicial custody, it cannot be said that the respondents have not taken any action in the matter. Having regard to the averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit, this Court is satisfied that the respondents have investigated into the matter and further investigation is still in progress. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to expedite the investigation and complete the same expeditiously and in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 1st July, 2010 pnb