IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1489 of 2009 Between: 1 Komareddy SravanKumar S/o.K.v.N.Appa Rao of First Steps Primary English mediuam School Door No.24B-10-35, Panugantivari STreet, R.R.Pet Eluru, West Godavari District 2 Smt.Kommaredy Kanchana W/o.Komareddy Sravan Kumar R/o.Panugantivari STreet, R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Eluru West Godavari District 2 The Station House Officer, Law & Order, II Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District 3 Vishnuvajjula Laxmi Narasimha Rao S/.o.Ramakrishna Sastry R/o.D.No.11-5-57/5, Venkateswara Colony Saroornagar ,Hyderabad 4 K.Suresh S/o.K.Bapaiah R/o.Flat No.201,Sai Balaji Towers, Sathavahana Nagar Gavaravaram, Eluru Mandal, West Godvari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:SMT. A.HARIJA FOR MR.M.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 failed to take action in respect of Crime No.12 of 2009 registered against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and to direct him to complete investigation and file charge sheet. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the investigation conducted into Crime No.12 of 2009 registered against respondent Nos.3 and 4 prima facie revealed that the said respondents committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC, but there is no evidence regarding outraging the modesty of petitioner No.2 and giving life threat at the point of weapons to the petitioners. It is also stated that the answering respondent addressed a letter to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru, on 05.02.2009 requesting to delete Sections 354 and 506(ii) IPC from the case and that the issue is pending before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru. Having regard to the above stand taken by respondent No.2, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioners is partly redressed. As regards the opinion of respondent No.2 that no offence is made out under Sections 354 and 506(ii) IPC, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the right of the petitioners to file a protest petition, after the above-mentioned two Sections are deleted, before the jurisdictional Magistrate may be preserved. I see force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to file a charge sheet/final report in respect of Crime No.12 of 2009, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already filed. If a report regarding deletion of Sections 354 and 506(ii) IPC is filed by respondent No.2, the petitioners are given liberty to file a protest petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.1887 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th JUNE, 2009. kvni