IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 5308 of 2009 Between: Talari Naidu Alias Tirumala Naidu S/o. Talari Venkata Subbaiah D. Kalvatala Village, Peddamudium Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District at Kadapa. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 3 The Station House Officer, Peddamudium Police Station, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the alibi petition number CCC.1060/2008 dated 17.5.2008 and passing appropriate orders after conducting enquiry and examination of eye witness regarding the participation of the petition in the offence in SC.No.329/2008 on the file of the Court of the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.5308 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioner, on the complaint given by one Rachamallu Srinivasa Reddy of Nagarajupally village, to the 3rd respondent-Station House Officer, Peddamudium Police Station, on 15.05.2008, with regard to the commission of murder of his brother Rachamallu Viswanatha Reddy occurred on the same day at 2.30 p.m., a case in Crime No.35 of 2008 on the file of Peddamudian Police Station, Kadapa District, has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and the petitioner figured as Accused No.6 in the said case. The petitioner contends that, in fact, on 15.05.2008 at 9.00 a.m. he along with some of his villagers went to Deebhaguntla village, Gospadu Mandal, Kurnool District, in connection with payment of dowry amount to Sri Chenchaiah, and returned to their village by 8.30 p.m. and, as such, his involvement in the offence alleged by the complainant does not arise, and he is falsely implicated in the said offence. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, on his behalf, his mother submitted an alibi petition to the 1st respondent-Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, narrating about the false implication of the petitioner, and seeking the concerned officials to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action, and the grievance cell, having received the same, assigned petition current No.CCC.No.1060/08/G1/08, dated 17.05.2008, but the respondents have not taken any action on the said alibi petition. Though the matter was adjourned on several occasions, today, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents placed a copy of the letter, dated 08.04.2009, addressed by the 1st respondent-Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, wherein it is clearly stated that the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jammalamadugu, conducted an enquiry into the alibi petition filed by the mother of the petitioner and also the petition submitted by the petitioner and submitted an enquiry report. It is also stated that basing on the said enquiry, instructions were given to the Investigating Officer to arrest the petitioner (Accused No.6) vide C.No.C1/206/DCRB/08, dated 22.07.2008, as alibi was not proved, and on 29.07.2008, the Circle Inspector of Police, Jammalamadugu Rural, arrested the petitioner (Accused No.6) and sent him for remand. It is further stated that the alibi petition can be once again enquired and reply will be submitted, if this Court so desires and directs. Since the petitioner is pleading alibi, the Investigating Officer concerned, who is investigating the case, has to enquire into the plea of alibi, and not Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jammalamadugu, who has nothing to do with the case. Hence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent, namely the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, is directed to direct the concerned Investigating Officer, who is investigating the case, to enquire into the plea of alibi, and after taking into consideration the report that may be submitted by him, pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 22.04.2009 v v