THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.995 of 2007 Date: 07.03.2008 Between: Lalaji Nageshji … Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam district. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Home HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.995 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 in investigating the case in Cr.No.220 of 2006, on the file of the 1st respondent police, for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and not recovering the loss sustained by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.13 lakhs, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to respondents 2 to 4 to investigate the said crime. Heard Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. The petitioner is a moneylender. He alleged that on 16.11.2006 in the early hours at 7.30 a.m., a person claiming to be part of the Intelligence Department accompanied by two others forcibly entered his house and demanded the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs stating that some persons kidnapped his son. When the petitioner refused to part with the said money, they broke open the almirah and took away a sum of Rs.10,000/- and gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.12,90,000/-. When the petitioner made a complaint, only a part of the petitioner’s statement was dictated by the Inspector of Police of respondent No.1 station and failed to dictate the full text of the statement of the petitioner and on the basis of the said statement he registered crime No.220 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 392 of the India Penal Code and Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The petitioner alleged that after the newspapers published the above-mentioned incident, the police of respondent No.1 deliberately obtained the petitioner’s signature by distorting the facts on a purported statement to the effect that the culprits who committed burglary claimed to be naxalites and the property stolen was worth Rs.1.25 lakhs only. The petitioner further alleged that apart from the above-mentioned extortions indulged by the police of respondent No.1 station, they have been raiding the petitioner’s house and intimidating the petitioner by saying that he foisted a false case. Fed up with the attitude of the police of respondent No.1, the petitioner made representation dated 14.12.2006 to respondent No.2 with a request to intervene in the matter and to do justice. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of helping in conducting investigation and filing charge sheet, respondent No.1 police are harassing and the petitioner apprehends that no justice would be done at their hands. The Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam district filed a counter affidavit in which he denied the allegations made by the petitioner. He also submitted that after registration of crime, the ID party visited several places including Godavarikhani of Karimnagar district and caused enquiry, but no clues are available. He denied any lethargy on his part in causing the investigation. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the pleadings, I am of the view that in the face of serious allegations made by the petitioner about the integrity of the investigating officer and the police attached to the III Town Police Station, respondent No.2 shall take appropriate steps to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Though the incident had allegedly taken place in November, 2006, no report appeared to have been filed by respondent No.1 as required under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This itself, prima facie, indicates total lethargy on the part of the police of respondent No.1. In these circumstances, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate steps to entrust investigation to an impartial police officer and ensure that report is filed as expeditiously as possible before the jurisdictional Magistrate in crime No.220 of 2006, at any rate, not later than three months from today. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.1249 and 1250 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:07.03.2008 mdaa