HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25044 of 2007 Dated: 22-01-2008 Between: Adabala Krishnaveni. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25044 of 2007 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not entrusting the investigation in respect of Crime No.78 of 2006 to C.B.C.I.D. by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.11.2007 as illegal and arbitrary with a consequential direction to the respondents to hand over the investigation to C.B.C.I.D. 2. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Police on 7th of August 2006 pursuant to which, as case was registered in Crime No.78 of 2006 for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 427, 452, 324, 354, 379 read with 34 of I.P.C. The gist of the complaint was that on 7th of August 2006, at about 9 p.m., one Adabala Narayana Prasad and 12 others, who are residents of Mulikipalli village of Razole Mandal, East Godavari District, trespassed into the house of the complainant/petitioner in the absence of her husband and abused her. It was further stated that when the son of the petitioner intervened, the named persons in the complaint beat him and caused bleeding injuries. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though such of the persons named in the complaint have committed non-bailable offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 452, 324, 354, 379 read with 34 of IPC, but however, the 4th respondent, after re-investigation, filed the final report only for the offences under Sections 448, 506, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. After filing final report as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., the case was registered in C.C.No.163 of 2007 and is pending trial. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, there was an investigation by another officer, but however, the 4th respondent-investigating officer was prevailed over by the accused in the crime and at their instance, the final report was filed only for the offences under Sections 448, 506, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by 4th respondent on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit it is stated that on receipt of the complaint, the complainant/victim was examined by the Doctor, who treated the complainant and certified that the injuries caused on her were simple in nature and opined that they might have been caused by blunt object. It is further stated that at first instance, the investigation was done by Assistant Sub-inspector of Police, but however, on the Memo issued by the Inspector of Police, the 4th respondent made further investigation and in the re-investigation, several witnesses were examined and based on the evidence recorded in the re-investigation, the accused were charged only for the offences under Sections 448, 506, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel Sri Dhanamjaya, appearing for the petitioner, that asmuch as the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 452, 324, 354, 379 read with 34 of I.P.C., but however, the 4th respondent, only to help such of the accused, by re-investigating the case, filed final report only for the offences under Sections 448, 506, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. At this stage, it is to be noted that merely because the complaint was filed with several allegations, the same cannot be taken to be true on its face value. After receipt of the complaint, it is for the Police to make an investigation and by recording necessary evidence, final report is to be filed as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Even the 4th respondent herein did not conduct re-investigation on his own as alleged by the petitioner, but however, it appears from the counter affidavit that such re-investigation was done only at the instance of the Memo issued by Inspector of Police, by which, he had ordered for further investigation. In any event, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, it is always open for her to file objections before the Magistrate before whom this Calendar Case is seized up for trial, but the same is no ground to seek directions from this Court for entrusting the investigation to C.B.C.I.D. From the counter affidavit it is clear that respondents have properly investigated the case and there are no compelling circumstances, which warrant an investigation by C.B.C.I.D. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ 22nd January 2008 JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY ajr