IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17698 of 2004 Between: United India Insurance Company, Eluru Division, Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Divisional Manager. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Dept. of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 8 others. … Respondents Order: United India Insurance Company, through its Divisional Manager, Eluru Division, has filed this Writ Petition seeking quashing of proceedings in Cr.No.134/2001 on the file of Police Station, Bhimadole, West Godavari District. 2. On 19-12-2001, one Sri Kathula Rajasekhar, who was the husband of sixth respondent, father of third respondent and son of eight respondent, met with an accident while riding motorcycle bearing Regn.No.AP-5Q-1115 and suffered injuries. The fifth respondent herein, who was pillion rider on the said motorcycle, too, suffered injuries. They were taken to Govt. Hospital, Eluru, and were referred to University General Hospital, Vijayawada. On 20-12-2001, Sri Kathula Rajasekhar died. Based on the statement of the pillion rider, Sri V. Rakesh, the fifth respondent herein, a case was registered in Cr.No.134/2001, on the file of Police Station, Bhimadole, for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. When the said crime was under investigation, further statement is given by the fifth respondent that the accident had taken place on account of collision of the motorcycle with a car bearing Regn.No.AP- 35B-1111, owned by the fourth respondent and driven by the third respondent. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-insurance company that the said statement is given by the fifth respondent only to support the motor vehicle claim made against the owner of the car and the petitioner-insurance co., in O.P.No.194 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Godavari, at Eluru, on 01-01- 2003. 4. Registration of the said crime is questioned mainly on the ground that there is no power to the respondent-Police to entertain second statement, with regard to the same accident. It is alleged that the complaint made by the fifth respondent, which is registered as Cr.No.134/2001 on the file of Police Station, Bhimadole, is a fraudulent one and is only aimed at improving the case in the said O.P., and claiming compensation from the petitioner-insurance company. 5. At the stage of admission, this court ordered stay of proceedings in the O.P. 6. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents 6, 7 and 8 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the second respondent that after completion of investigation, final report was filed before the competent criminal court and after trial, the accused were acquitted from the charges framed against them. 7. In view of filing a final report in Cr.No.134/2004 on the file of Police Station, Bhimadole and as final adjudication is done in which the accused were acquitted from the charges framed against them, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary, at this stage, to examine the validity of registration of the said crime. The only ground on which relief is sought by the petitioner is that no second complaint could have been entertained by the Police from the fifth respondent with regard to the very same accident. In this context, it is to be noted that after the accident had taken place, on the statement of the pillion rider-fifth respondent, crime in question was registered on 20-12-2001 itself. Merely because a further statement given by the fifth respondent on 25-09-2002 is recorded, the same cannot be termed as a second complaint and it cannot be said that a second complaint is entertained by the Police. It is always open for the investigating agency to record the statements of the relevant witnesses before filing charge-sheet. While it is open for the petitioner-company to raise the plea of false claim against it, in the O.P., but, on the ground, the relief sought in this writ petition cannot be granted. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed keeping open to the petitioner to raise objection as regards maintainability of claim made against it, in the O.P. No order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J November 19, 2009 MRR