IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27642 of 2007 Between: Princess/Shahezadi Naqiya Zainab … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. Anis Fatima for Sri V. Durga Nageswar Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27642 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to register complaint dated 10.11.2007 filed by the petitioner, complete the investigation and submit report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Heard Smt. Anees Fatima representing Sri V. Durga Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In the manner in which the writ petition is being disposed of, there is no need to issue notice to respondent Nos.3 to 8. The only grievance of the petitioner projected in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and argued by her counsel, at the hearing, is that though the petitioner filed complaint against respondent Nos.3 to 8 as far back as 10.11.2007, so far, neither a crime has been registered nor any action has been taken thereon by respondent No.2 police. The Inspector of Police of Narayanaguda Police Station filed a counter-affidavit in which it is mentioned as under: “It is respectfully submitted that on receipt of a complaint from the petitioner herein on 12.02.2008, a case in Cr.No.67/2008 under Section 403, 405, 406, 419, 420, 423, 425, 441, 442, 447, 448, 465, 468, 477-A, 506, 107, 120-B r/w. 34 IPC was registered on the file of this respondent police station and investigation was taken up by the Sub-Inspector of Police Sri E. Venkat Reddy. I respectfully submit that during the course of investigation the investigation officer visited the residential address of the complaint/petitioner, LW-4 and LW-5 whose names have been clearly mentioned in the complaint as witnesses but they were not available at that time. The investigation officer tried to contact them over the telephone No.98392499229 which has been given by the LW-4 and LW-5 and the investigation officer tried to contact Mr. Rahman the Counsel for the complainant over the telephone No.9391334501 several times, but there was no response. I respectfully submit that on 06.03.2008 Anees Fatima, the counsel of the complainant came to the police station to collect the Xerox copies. A notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was served through her to the complainant as well as LW-4 Shahezadi shafia Sakina and LW-5 Mohd. Azharuddin, resident of Hyderabad to give evidence, but there was no response. I further respectfully submit that as it is a complicated case involving collecting of lot of documentary evidence as well as examination witnesses, it will take considerably much time to collect the documentary evidence as well as other evidence. Investigation is pending for want of collection of documentary evidence. No prima facie case is established so far against the accused in the FIR to show that they have committed the offence.” In view of the above-reproduced contents of the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is not possible to direct respondent No.2 to file the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. within four weeks. However, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the investigation with reasonable despatch and file the report at the earliest possible time. Liberty is given to the petitioner to seek appropriate directions before the jurisdictional Magistrate in the event respondent No.2 delays filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos. 36160 of 2007 and 4908 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2008 ES