IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.21058 of 2007 Between: Smt.M.Vimala Devi. … Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, SR Nagar Police Station at SR Nagar, Hyderabad and eight others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.Ramchander Goud Counsel for the respondents: Asst.Govt.Pleader for Home for R.1 to R.4. Sri G.Praveen Kumar for R.5 Sri B.Venkata Rama Rao for R.6 & R.8. Sri K.Laxmana Rao for R.7 & R.9. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1, 2 and 4 in not taking up investigation consequent on registration of Crime No.175 of 2007 against respondents 5 to 9, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for Respondents 1 to 4; and Sri B.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for respondents 6 and 8. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to refer, in detail, to the factual controversies of the case. It will suffice if it is mentioned that on the complaint given by the petitioner against respondents 5 to 9 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the same was referred by the said Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to respondent No.2 for investigation. Consequently, respondent No.2 registered the complaint as Crime No.175 of 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not been showing any urgency in completing the investigation and causing prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1 and on behalf of respondents 6 and 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that after registration of Crime No.175 of 2007 under Sections 416, 419,420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 472 and 474 read with Section 120-B IPC by the Inspector of Police, Sanathnagar, investigation was entrusted to the Sub-Inspector of Police; that the Investigating Officer examined the complainant and recorded her detailed statement; and that as the said statement revealed that the entire fraud was allegedly committed by the accused in a residential house bearing No.7-1- 304/6/30/B, Adityanagar, Balkampet, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, on 9-5-2007 to forward the investigation in the said Crime to the Police of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station. It is further stated that A.1 to A.5 surrendered before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad on 9-5-2007 and were released on bail; that after receipt of C.D. file from Sanathnagar Police Station, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station registered Crime No.470 of 2007 and commenced investigation by sending a copy of FIR to the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad; that consequent on the re-registration of the case, the Investigating Officer addressed a letter to the District Registrar, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District on 26-10-2007 requesting him to issue the required documents for the purpose of investigation; and that after obtaining documents, a requisition was filed before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on 15-11-2007 seeking to issue summons to the complainant/petitioner, obtain her handwriting and signatures, and send the same to handwriting expert to prove the allegation of forgery. While denying the allegation that respondent No.1 did not make progress in investigating the case and that they are hand in glove with respondents 5 to 9, it is stated that the investigation is in progress and the handwriting and signatures obtained from the petitioner are being sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and on receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Labo the case will be finalized. From the averments contained in the above- mentioned counter-affidavit, I am of the view that the bald allegation made by the petitioner that investigation into the Crime is lethargic, has no basis. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Since the complaint of the petitioner was registered on the directions given by the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., if the petitioner finds that the Police have not been acting with reasonable dispatch, she is free to move the jurisdictional Magistrate for hastening of the investigation process and filing report by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. ----------------------------------- --- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.07-3-2008 MNR