IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.925 of 2010 Between: Myneni Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary for Home, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.V.R. Krishna Sharma Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri K. Ananda Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.925 of 2010 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 action of respondent No.2 in continuing respondent No.3 as investigating officer in Crime No.37 of 2009 of Psodayapalem Police Station, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to appoint any other investigating officer in place of respondent No.3. I have heard Sri K.V.R. Krishna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri K. Ananda Rao for respondent No.5. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.37 of 2009 of respondent No.4 police station. The said crime was registered on 08.11.2009 for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said case was registered on the report given by respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, the said case was foisted as a counter blast to Crime No.36 of 2009, which was registered on 06.11.2009 at the instance of the petitioner’s political enemy by name Yelavarthi Radhakrishna Murthy. The petitioner alleged that the said Radhakrishna Murthy is a strong local congress leader and that respondent No.3 is not doing fair investigation and has been acting to the tunes of the said person. The petitioner further averred that his request made to respondent No.2 to change respondent No.3 has not yielded any result. In the counter affidavit fled by Sri T. Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, Sub- Divisional Police Officer, respondent No.3, the abovementioned allegations have been strongly denied. While narrating the events that have led to registration of Crime No.37 of 2009 against the petitioner, he stated that as per the directions of respondent No.2, he has taken up the investigation and that during the course of investigation, he has examined 6 witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. It is further opined that from the evidence collected so far, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Respondent No.5 also filed a counter affidavit reference to which is not very much necessary. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as respondent No.3 is influenced by the local congress leader, he is not conducting fair investigation. Except making a vague allegation, the petitioner failed to support the said allegation with any evidence whatsoever on the alleged biased attitude of respondent No.3 and he being influenced by the local congress leader. In the absence of any such material, it is not possible for this Court to accept the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.3 is not likely to conduct fair investigation. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as totally meritless. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.1160 of 2010 and WVMP.Nos.1145 and 1336 of 2010 are also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.04.2010 ES