THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8365 OF 2010 Dated 15th April, 2010 Between: K.Bhima Rao …Petitioner And 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: ----- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in taking action against respondent No.4 for not producing the petitioner’s documents along with final report filed in Crime No.358 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.Bhaskar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record. The private complaint made by the petitioner against respondent No.4 was referred by the learned II Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the jurisdictional Magistrate’) under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Respondent No.4 registered Crime No.538 of 2007 against two persons viz., Malla Ramesh and Kottomsetti Srinivas on 16-05-2007. On finding that the complaint given by the petitioner was civil in nature, respondent No.4 filed a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 26-02-2008. The petitioner’s grievance was that while filing the said report, respondent No.4 has not filed original documents, which are stated to have been received by him, vide endorsement, dated 09-06-2007. In his representation given to respondent No.2, on 21-10-2009, the petitioner claimed that after filing of report by respondent No.4 and the petitioner filing a memo on 27-08-2009, seeking return of the documents, the petitioner came to know that the documents filed along with the complaint were missing from the Court record and that when the same was brought to the notice of the jurisdictional Magistrate, he directed the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station to produce the documents and final report and that on 06-10-2009, the jurisdictional Magistrate passed a conditional order stating that if the documents were not produced by the next date, further steps will be ordered. It is further stated that on 12-10-2009, the Police have not responded to the notice issued by the Magistrate and therefore, the Magistrate passed an order observing that report from the Police was not received despite conditional order and that the complainant’s case will be proceeded further. A perusal of the final report filed by respondent No.4 shows that all the original documents were submitted in the civil Court by accused No.1. In my opinion, it is not possible for this Court to give direction to respondent No.4 to produce the documents before the Magistrate in the face of varying stands taken by the parties on availability thereof. Unless the jurisdictional Magistrate holds an enquiry into this aspect, and if on such enquiry, he finds that respondent No.4 has, in fact, received those documents and failed to resubmit the same, he shall give appropriate directions. Though the petitioner raised a vague plea that he made a request to the jurisdictional magistrate to direct the Police to produce the document and that on such request, the above-mentioned orders were passed by the Magistrate, he has not specifically pleaded whether any application in writing in that regard was made. The petitioner also failed to file the alleged orders passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. In view of the same, the petitioner is permitted to file an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Magistrate giving details and evidence in support of his plea that respondent No.4 has received the original documents in connection with the investigation and failed to file the same along with the report. On such application being filed, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall hold an enquiry and pass appropriate order before considering the protest petition filed by the petitioner on merits. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.10777 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th April, 2010 lur