IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20170 of 2004 Between: Raman Lal Jain, S/o. Zumber Lal Jain, Shop at 20-5-39, Shah-Ali-Banda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Director Geneal and Inspector General of Police, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 Dy. Commissioner of Police, West Zone, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. 4 S.H.O., P.S., Tappachabutra, karwan, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 pass an order or orders one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the respondent No.1 to 3 for not considering and passing any appropriate order on the representation made by the petitioner on 6.7.2004, 3.8.2004, 18.10.2004 against the respondent No.4 and declare the same as totally illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is about non-considering the representations, dated 6th July 2004, 3rd August 2004 and 18th October 2004, filed by him against the 4th respondent. 2. On 28th of March 2004, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the 4th respondent-Station House Officer of P.S. Tappachabutra, stating that he is having a jewellery shop at premises bearing No.20-5-39, Shalibanda, Hyderabad, and that on that day, at about 1.30 p.m., he kept his bag containing the gold ornaments and fine gold, and also bill papers, in the dickey of his scooter bearing No.AP-12D-1125, and left his house for Lingampally and Pattancheru on business purpose. On the way at Dadawadi Temple, Karwan, he parked his scooter infront of a temple and locked it. In the complaint, it is stated that when he came out of the temple after having darshan within 15 minutes, he found that the bag containing the gold ornaments and fine gold, was missing. On the strength of the above complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.64 of 2004, for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that based on his complaint, the accused was apprehended and some quantity of gold was recovered. He contended that by coercion, the respondents have obtained another complaint from him on 29.03.2004 to the effect that the actual quantity of gold lost was 1139.98 grams, but not 1513.900 grams, as stated in his earlier complaint. In his representation, dated 6th July 2004, addressed to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has represented against the 4th respondent, stating that the 4th respondent has returned about 538 grams of fine gold to him and insisted upon him to make jewellery weighing about 800 grams. It is his grievance that the 2nd complaint was not given on his own, but he was forced to give the same at the instance of respondent No.4. Alleging irregularities on the part of respondent No.4, he made representations to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, but inspite of the same, no action has been taken by them against respondent No.4. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that though the 1st complaint was given by the petitioner on 28.03.2004 at 17.30 hours, but subsequently, additional complaint was given by him on 29.03.2004, stating that in confusion, he had not checked the rare side portion of the dickey of his scooter on 28.03.2004, and on his checking, he found 381.920 grams of gold ornaments in his scooter dickey, and hence, the actual quantity of gold ornaments lost was only 1131.980 grams and not 1513.900 grams. With reference to the representations filed by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter affidavit that on receipt of the said representations, the 2nd respondent has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police i.e. respondent No.3 herein, for taking further action, and the 3rd respondent directed respondent No.4 to submit a detailed report in this regard. Consequent thereupon, respondent No.4 has submitted his detailed report to the 2nd respondent on 09.11.2004, narrating all the facts. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that since all the allegations pleaded in the writ petition are false, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Even according to the learned counsel for petitioner, in Crime No.64 of 2004, which was registered on the complaint filed by the petitioner, a final report, as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., is already filed. If any discrepancy is there with regard to the quantity of gold stolen from the petitioner, even after filing of the final report, the petitioner can as well approach the Magistrate concerned, by filing his objections, if any, to the final report prepared under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and the Magistrate is also empowered to order for further investigation in view of the provisions contained under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 6. So far as the representations filed by the petitioner are concerned, it is clear from the counter affidavit that the same were already considered and disposed of by the respondents. In view of the same, no relief can be granted as prayed for in the writ petition. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the findings recorded in the final report, it is open for him to approach the competent Magistrage by filing appropriate application. 7. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th April 2009. ajr