IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25074 of 1999 Between: 1 G. Savitramma, W/o. Sri. G. AppalaNaidu, R/o. Munginapally Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizinagaram District. 2 Dr. G. Sridhar, S/o. Sri G. Appala Naiud, R/o. Munginapally Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizinagaram District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Superintedent of Police., Vikarabad., Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Vikarabad., Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Vikarabad., Ranga Reddy District. 4 Sri G. Ramana, Railway Station, Vikarabad., Ranga Reddy 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 issue a Writ, order or direction more paticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No. 1 not to conduct any enquiry in Crime No. 302 of 1998 registered in Vikarabad P.S. , Ranga Reddy Dist as his actions are arbitrary illegal and malafide and consequently entrust this case to any other compatnat officer who is not subordinate to Respondent No. 1 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No. 25074 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioners seek a direction to respondent No.1–Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad, not to conduct any enquiry in Crime No. 302 of 1998 registered in Vikarabad Police Station of Ranga Reddy District. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K.Vijaya Rao is no more. Normally notice is required to be issued to the petitioners. However, with a view to verify whether the grievance of the petitioners still subsists, this court has perused the record. The petitioners are parents of one G.Sridevi. She was given in marriage to the fourth respondent. Sridevi died on 31.12.1998 under mysterious circumstances. A case, being Cr. No. 302 of 1998 was registered in relation to the death of Sridevi and it was alleged that it was a dowry death. The petitioners state that the name of the 4th respondent was not mentioned only with a view to avoid disciplinary action by his employer. According to the petitioners, the first respondent was misdirecting the entire trial and they insisted that the first respondent be prevented from interfering in taking up the investigation. Nearly 9 years have elapsed ever since the writ petition was admitted. No interim order was passed. By this time, the entire proceedings may have reached the finality in one form or the other. Therefore, nothing needs to be decided in this writ petition and it is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05-12-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VVS}