IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26987 of 2006 Between: Shaik Nabee Saheb @ China Nabee Saheb Guntur District. … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Dept., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26987 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to entrust the investigation in Crime No.41 of 2006 pending before respondent Nos.4 and 5 to another investigating agency or CBCID. I have heard Sri C. Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The youngest son of the petitioner was killed on 01.04.2006. On the report lodged by the petitioner, respondent No.5 registered Crime No.41 of 2006 on 02.04.2006 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the wife, in-laws and brothers-in-law of the deceased. According to the petitioner, after registration of the case, he came to learn that there were money transactions between the deceased and one Syed Allabaksh and that in order to evade payment of money to the deceased the said person along with 8 others of Bayyavaram village killed the deceased. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said information having been given by him, the police have not taken any action for investigation on proper lines to apprehend the real culprits and that the local MLA is trying to shield and protect the culprits. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4, wherein it i s inter alia stated that investigation of the crime has been done on proper lines, that the persons, whom the petitioner has suspected, were subjected to polygraph test in Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and that the report did not disclose involvement of the said persons. It is further stated that as no prima facie case was made out against the persons suspected by the petitioner, they were not arrested. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that a final report has already been prepared after completing the investigation and that the same will be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner persisted that respondent No.3 may be directed to entrust the investigation to another agency, in my opinion, such a request cannot be accepted because it is entirely within the province of the police to conduct investigation and unless a strong case is made out showing negligence on the part of the police, investigation cannot be entrusted to another agency. Under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate is empowered to order further investigation, if he is satisfied on the material placed on behalf of the complainant that proper investigation is not done (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1]). In this view of the matter, respondent No.4 is directed to file appropriate report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of four weeks, after service of notice to the petitioner. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the report, he shall be free to file a protest petition and also an application before the Magistrate for further investigation. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.34675 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.08.2010. ES [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409