THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 9249 OF 2010 Dated 22nd April, 2010 Between: Nitin Mishra and two others …Petitioner And Commissioner of Police and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.Raghu Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition, which is anticipatory in nature, is devoid of any merit and substance. The petitioners, who are residents of Hyderabad, stated that in connection with the recent disturbances, respondent No.2 registered Crime Nos.80, 81, 88, 93, 94 and 95 of 2010 against unknown persons and that he is threatening to implicate the petitioners in the said cases. The petitioners, therefore, sought for a Mandamus to declare the said action of respondent No.2 as illegal and to direct respondent No.2 not to include them in the said criminal cases without any material evidence collected during evidence. In my opinion, the police, who are vested with the duty of maintenance of law and order, registration of criminal cases and investigation, are entitled to act in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). If the petitioners are falsely implicated, they have their own remedies available under the Code. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not the function of this Court to examine the manner in which the police have been making investigation into the offences. Ordinarily it is reasonable to presume that the police register cases against those who are believed to have committed offences and that they will not act without collecting proper material. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the investigation into the criminal cases pertaining to serious communal disturbances and issue directions to the police, which will have the effect of curtailing their effective functioning. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.11935 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd April, 2010 vrn