THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9663 of 2010 Date:26.07.2010 Between: Kavali Laxmamma and others. ..... Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande for Sri M.Rajender Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.4:-- Counsel for Respondent Nos.6 to 10: Sri V. Hanumantha Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare registration of F.I.R. No.195 of 2009 of Kothur Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, on the complaint given by respondent No.10 against the petitioners at the behest of respondent Nos.6 to 9 as illegal and arbitrary. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It would suffice to note that there are cases and counter cases registered against the petitioners and respondent No.10 and they are pending. In respect of F.I.R.No.195 of 2009, in relation to which the present writ petition is filed, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothur Police Station, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, has stated that the investigation held in the said crime revealed that there is clinching evidence of commission of offence by the petitioners and that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 27.04.2010, the Police are unable to file charge sheet. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home stated that this Court has merely ordered for stay of arrest of the petitioner and that the Police are not prevented from filing charge sheet and that the abovementioned averment in the counter-affidavit is a mistake. The learned counsel representing respondent Nos.6 to 10 submitted that according to his information a charge sheet has already been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that as the investigation appeared to have been completed as evident from the counter-affidavit referred to above, his clients may be permitted to approach the Court concerned with an application for bail and that to enable them to do so, the interim order granted by this Court on 27.04.2010 may be extended for a reasonable time. Having regard to the abovementioned facts and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. The petitioners are permitted to move an appropriate application for bail before the Court concerned and the interim order dated 27.04.2010 by which the petitioners’ arrest has been stayed shall be continued for a period of two weeks. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th July, 2010 GHN