IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12513 of 2007 Between: Kodamala Koteswaramma … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12513 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in investigating Crime No.65 of 2003, as illegal and arbitrary. On the report given by the petitioner, Crime No.65 of 2003 was registered against respondent No.4 for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In this writ petition, the petitioner’s grievance is that though the said crime was registered as far back as the year 2003, no action was taken thereon for investigation and filing charge sheet. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that in pursuance of the registration of the crime, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sattenapally division conducted investigation during which 8 witnesses were examined, that the investigation, which was completed, disclosed that there were ill-feelings existing between the petitioner and the accused and that except the petitioner, no other witness had spoken about the commission of offence. It is further stated that the then Superintendent of Police, Guntur, obtained permission from the Additional Director General of Police, CID for reference of the petitioner’s complaint as false and that such a permission was given on 08.04.2004. It is further stated that as the petitioner refused to receive the notice, final report could not be filed in the Court concerned and that the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sattenapally filed the final report in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli on 17.07.2007 In view of filing of the final report, as stated in the counter affidavit, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to approach respondent No.2 for supply of a copy of the final report and respondent No.2 shall furnish the same on the petitioner so approaching him. The petitioner is also entitled to file a protest petition before the Special Court. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.15590 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.06.2010. ES