IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3435 of 2002 Between: Sri Vuppaluri Veerendra Rao S/o. Gopala Krishnamurthy R/o. Chikkala Village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kovvur Division, Kovvur, West Godavari District. 3 The Station House Officer, Chagallu Police Station, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking any action in Crime No. 9/2002 filed by the petitioner on the file of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and is against the principles of natural justice and norms of the public plociy and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to grant police aid to the petitioner and his family and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.3435 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner submitted a complaint before the Station House Officer, Chagallu Police Station-third respondent herein on 25.1.2002 against the persons mentioned therein alleging that those persons trespassed into his property and have also demolished a wall forcibly. Crime No. 9 of 2002 was registered. The petitioner has also instituted proceedings in the civil court. His grievance is that having registered the crime, the third respondent did not take any steps in the matter, much less filed final report. The third respondent filed his counter affidavit. It is stated that after registration of the crime, he had examined as many as 20 persons and since it emerged that no crime as such was committed by the persons named as accused, he did not take further steps. He made a mention to the civil litigation pending between the petitioner and the other persons. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. It is a matter of record that on the strength of the complaint submitted by the petitioner, Crime No. 9 of 2002 was registered. From the counter affidavit, it is evident that fairly a large number of witnesses were examined. Depending on the result of the enquiry undertaken by the police, final report indicating the nature of the offence or lack of it is to be filed before the trial court. In case final report discloses any charge, the trial would be undertaken and on the other hand, if it does not disclose any crime, the matter would be closed. In such an event, the defacto complainant would have an opportunity to file a protest petition. The third respondent cannot keep the matter in the state of uncertainty. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to submit final report in Crime No.9 of 2002 before the court concerned within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, duly serving notice on the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21-11-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI}