IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 19815 of 2007 Between: Shaik Fareeda W/o.Late Shaik Sharfuddin R/o.H.No.18-1-510/80/A, Bapu Bagh, Chandrayanagutta Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad 2 The Station House officer, P.S.Pahadisharieef Hyderabad 3 Mohd.Akbar S/o.Sharfuddin R/o.Opp to H.No.1-18/2, Al Ajeen colony Pahadisharif, Saroornagar Mandal R.R.District 4 Mohamed S/o.not known to petitioner C/o.Mohd.Akbar, R/o.Opp: H.No.1-18/2, Al Ajeen colony Pahadisharif, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District 5 Syed S/o.not known to petitioner C/o.Mohd.Akbar, R/o.Opp: H.No.1-18/2, Al Ajeen colony Pahadisharif, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District 6 Shakeel S/o.not known to petitioner C/o.Mohd.Akbar, R/o.Opp: H.No.1-18/2, Al Ajeen colony Pahadisharif, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ or writs or directions more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in registering the FIR No.225/2007 under Sec.174 Cr.P.C.as illegal,arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to alter the crime from Sec.174 Cr.P.C. to Sec. 302 IPC and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 19815 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The grievance as presented in this writ petition no longer survives for adjudication. The substantive grievance of the petitioner, a widow of Shaik Sharfuddin is that the 2nd respondent registered the crime No. 255 of 2007 on the file of Police Station, Pahadisharieef, Hyderabad under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) despite oral complaint of the petitioner stated to have been lodged to the 2nd respondent on 19-06-2007 and despite injuries on the body of the petitioner’s deceased husband which ought to have resulted in registering of the case under Section 302 of the IPC. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the answering respondent had summoned the records relating to crime No. 255 of 2007 registered on the file of 2nd respondent-Police Station and on consideration of the circumstances relating to the offence of which the complaint has been made and so registered, the answering respondent had issued instructions to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar Zone to entrust the investigation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar division by duly altering the appropriate section of law. Accordingly the counter states that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar zone after perusal and consideration of the CD file and depositions in the record of investigation already done, directed the 2nd respondent to alter the provision of law to Section 302 IPC and to handover the case file to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar who is incharge of Ibrahimpatnam division for further investigation. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent filed a memo before the Court of learned II-Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad informing about the alteration of provision of law and a similar memo was also filed on 03-07-2008 before the Executive Magistrate, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District requesting transfer of First Information Report and Inquest to the Court of II-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. The 1st respondent assures in the affidavit that investigation would be conducted and appropriate final report would be filed before the concerned Court at the earliest. In the light of the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the grievance of the petitioner does not subsist. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as ‘infructuous’. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 14-07-2008 pvks