IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1302 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/07/2008 in WP NO : 14573 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: J. Bala Krishna Shastry S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. D.No. 9-369, Santhi Nagar, Gudivada, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Polce (Eluru Range), Eluru, W.G. District. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District , Machilipatnam. 4 The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Patimeeda, Gudivada, Krishna District. 5 The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Gudivada. 6 J.S.V. Lakshmi Kanthi W/o. J. Balakrishna Satry (Railway T.C.) Post Office Bazar, Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada. 7 Kousika Lalitha W/o. K. Ramaiah R/o. Post Office Bazar, Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.V.V.N.NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1302 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 08-07-2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14573 of 2008. 3. Appellant is petitioner and respondents are respondents in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition was filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not conducting the investigation in Crime No.69 of 2008 registered by the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Gudivada, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to handover the investigation of the said case to any other officer. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he and the sixth respondent are lovers and their marriage was solemnized on 25-05-2005 at Annavaram as per Hindu Rites and Customs. During the wedlock, they were blessed with two children. The mother of the sixth respondent, who is his mother-in-law, was against their marriage and even after the marriage, she used to hate the petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the sixth respondent used to behave arrogantly towards the petitioner and his mother. During the course of time, the sixth respondent administered poison to both the children and she also consumed the same. After noticing the same, the petitioner shifted them to a Hospital at Vijayawada, and when the Doctors reported the matter to the I Town Police, Vijayawada, they refused to register the same on the ground of jurisdiction. Having no other alternative, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, on 05-03- 2008 and basing on the same, the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Gudivada, the fifth respondent herein, registered the same as Crime No.69 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 107, 307 and 309 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner was that though the police registered the case, they are not proceeding with the investigation, nor recorded the statements of any witnesses and always helping the accused, who are respondent Nos.6 and 7. Therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition. 7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the matter, through the impugned order, dated 08-07-2008, disposed of the writ petition directing the fifth respondent to expedite the investigation in Crime No.69 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible, without any delay. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present writ appeal. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that though a direction was given by the learned Single Judge, directing the fifth respondent to expedite the investigation in Crime No.69 of 2008, so far no steps have been taken to proceed with the investigation, nor recorded the statements of the witnesses. 9. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the fifth respondent. While denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that pursuant to the registration of Crime No.69 of 2008, the police took up investigation and in the process of investigation, as many as 19 witnesses were examined and their statements were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also stated that the investigation is under progress and as soon as the investigation is over, charge sheet will be filed before the Magistrate concerned. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Doctor, who treated the victim children, was not examined and the investigation was also not done properly. He also contended that the respondents are insisting the petitioner to go for a compromise only to help the accused. 11. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that pursuant to registration of Crime No.69 of 2008, the police have examined 19 witnesses and also the Doctor, who treated the victim children. It is also stated that the investigation is at final stage, and as soon as the investigation is completed, the police will file charge sheet in the Court below. 12. Basing on the said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no progress in the investigation and even the Doctor has not been examined, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the relevant records and also the presence of the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Gudivada, before this Court. 13. Pursuant to the said directions, the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Gudivada, was present before this Court along with the records. 14. After perusing the record placed before us, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the allegation of the petitioner that no investigation is taken up and the Doctor was not examined is found to be incorrect. 15. Insofar as the other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to handover the investigation of the crime to any other officer, since it is represented by the learned Government Pleader that pursuant to registration of Crime No.69 of 2008, the police have examined as many as 19 witnesses and also the Doctor and the investigation is at final stage, and soon as investigation is completed, charge sheet will be filed in the lower Court, we do not find any merit to consider to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to handover the investigation to any other officer. 16. For the foregoing, the impugned order, dated 08-07-2008, passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 17. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 03-12-2008. Msr. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1302 of 2008 03-12-2008 (Msr)