THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 4787 of 2009 O r d e r: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in not registering the report filed by him against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and not investigating the case properly and forcing him to withdraw the complaint, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that he has taken some amounts for business purpose from respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the month of November, 2007 without executing any document. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2008, he repaid the amount and paid more amounts than he had taken to respondent Nos. 5 to 7. While so, the petitioner states that on 22.02.2009, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 along with his henchmen came to his, and took him and his son to Golkonda Cross Roads, where they obtained their signatures on blank stamp papers. On the next day, i.e. on 23.02.2009, the petitioner states that he met respondent No.4 and lodged a complaint, and as no action was taken thereon, he reported the matter to the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners of Police, who advised him to meet respondent No.4. The petitioner states that as directed by the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners of Police, he met respondent No.4, but respondent No.4 instead of registering the complaint, took his signatures on blank papers. Thereafter, the petitioner states that respondent No.4 registered a defective FIR excluding the ingredients of kidnapping and extortion, and called him to the police station on 02.03.2009 in the name of investigation, and was surprised to see respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in his Chambers. On that day, the petitioner states that respondent No.4 forced him to withdraw the complaint made by him against respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a case in Crime No. 63 of 2009 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC on 24.02.2009. That during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, examined the petitioner and three other witnesses and recorded their statements. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that he has repaid the amounts taken from respondent Nos. 5 to 7, who produced promissory notes. It is further contended that even though the petitioner was issued notices dated 24.02.2009, 10.03.2009 and 24.03.2009, requesting him to produce documentary evidence to show that he has repaid the amount, the petitioner is not turning up for the investigation, and now he came to know that the petitioner went to Uttar Pradesh. It is contended that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation of the case, and that except the petitioner and his son, no other witness supported the version of the petitioner. He further submitted that still some more time is required for completing the investigation, and once the investigation is completed, they will file appropriate report/charge sheet. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter of respondent No.4, reiterating the very stand taken by him in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. As can be seen from the counter filed by respondent No.4, the complaint lodged by the petitioner is registered as Crime No.63 of 2009 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC on 24.02.2009 and they have also taken up the investigation and recorded the statements of the petitioner, his son and other witnesses. It is stated that except the petitioner and his son, no other witness supported the version of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 has specifically denied the allegations made against him that he had forced the petitioner to withdraw the case. Be that as it may, now that based on the complaint of the petitioner, respondent No.4 has already registered a crime and is conducting the investigation, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has not acted on his representation and not conducting the investigation cannot be accepted. Since respondent No.4 has already taken up the investigation, and in the process has already examined some witnesses, including the petitioner and his son, and that some more time is required for completing the investigation and filing of final report/charge sheet, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition, except directing respondent No.4 to complete the investigation and file final report/charge sheet. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the observation as above. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 30th April, 2009 KSR