THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14775 of 2010 Date: 28.6.2010 Between: Smt.(Dr.) Peddi Jagadhatri, WTH Colony, Visakhapatnam City and District. ………...Petitioner. And The Government of Andrha Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …… Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14775 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt (Dr.) Peddi Jagadhatri with a prayer to issue a writ or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in disposing of her representation dated 15.5.2010 and also the action of the 4th respondent in not filing charge sheet against all the accused in Crime No.1 of 2009, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claims that she has been married to Sri Peddi Phani Bhushan Rao on 31.1.2009 at Viskhapatnam as per Hindu Rites and Customs. According to the petitioner, her parents paid dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs apart from various amounts including certain amounts towards adapaduchu lanchanams. Her marital life with Peddi Phani Bhushan Rao ran in rough whether. The petitioner filed a report before the S.H.O, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam complaining harassment on the ground of dowry against her husband, her mother-in-law, sister-in-laws and brother-in-laws and their respective wives. The S.H.O., Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam, after completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet before I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatanam for the offences under Section 498-A IPC read with 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.53 of 2010. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 4th respondent has not properly conducted the investigation and deleted some of the persons whose names have been stated by her in the report. Therefore, the petitioner seeking entrustment of this case to the Crime Investigation Department (Women Wing) of Crime Brach or any other wing of the Police for proper and correct recording of statements. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home takes notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent has not properly conducted investigation, and, therefore, the investigation in Crime No.1 of 2009 is required to be directed to be entrusted to the Crime Investigation Department (Women Wing) of Crime Branch or any other wing of the police. Indisputably, the 4th respondent registered a case basing on the report submitted by the petitioner, and after due investigation, filed charge sheet before the concerned Court and the concerned Court took the charge sheet on file. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the deletion of some of the persons in the array of the accused, she is at liberty to file a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:28.6.2010 Note: Furnish CC within three days. B/O mrb