IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 541 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/03/2008 in WP NO : 18186 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. Nirmala Kale, W/o. Prasad Rao Kale R/o. H.No.1-30-15, Tirumalanagar, Kanajiguda, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector of Police, Alwall Police Station, Cyberabad, Secunderabad. 4 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alwall Police Station, Cyberabad, Secunderabad. 5 Deputy Inspector General of Police - IV, APSP. Battalions, Kakinada, H.A.C. of Commandant, 6th Bn.APSP, Mangalagiri .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO:541 of 2008 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The appellant submitted a complaint before the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, alleging that A1 to A4 therein and three other persons have assaulted her on 11.01.2006 at 5.30 pm. The trial Court directed the police to investigate into the same. During the course of investigation, the concerned police were able to apprehend A1 to A6 and cause their arrest. Subsequently, a final report was filed into the Court implicating A1 to A6. The appellant filed a protest petition not being satisfied with the final report and alleged that the investigating agency has deliberately refused to take any action against A7. She filed W.P.No.18186 of 2006 before this Court with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not arresting and not filing charge sheet against accused No.7 in Crime No.44 of 2006 on the file of Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad and a consequential direction is also sought. The learned single Judge called for a report from the police and on finding that the investigation had been proceeded on proper lines dismissed the writ petition through order dated 20.08.2007. Thereafter, the appellant filed Review W.P.M.P.No.29075 of 2007 before the learned Single Judge seeking review of the said order. On that the learned single Judge passed an order dated 30.03.2008 dismissing the said application. Hence this appeal. Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that this is a fit case for being entrusted to CBI, inasmuch as the unknown A7 is none other than the official of the CBI. He contends that though substantial progress has taken place in the investigation of the case, the crucial person who is behind the entire episode is being shielded deliberately. Obviously on being properly advised, the appellant had initially submitted her complaint to the police, and thereafter in the criminal Court, under the relevant provisions of law, in relation to the incident which is said to have taken place on 11.01.2006. The root cause for the incident appears to be the differences between the family members. Be that as it may, on a direction issued by the criminal Court, the police investigated the matter and submitted a final report. In fact, the appellant has also filed a protest petition. The concerned criminal Court is well equipped and better suited to deal with the various aspects of the matter. If the appellant is able to find out any deficiencies in the investigation or during the course of trial, there is no reason to apprehend that the criminal Court would not take care of the situation. Entrustment of any matter for investigation to CBI is not a matter of course. Depending on the gravity, the State Governments themselves would entrust the investigation to the said agency and instances are not lacking where the High Courts also issued necessary directions. Even in the latter category of cases, the consent of the State Government is necessary. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the investigation itself commenced with the intervention of the criminal Court. Further, the learned single Judge had dealt with the matter from the correct perspective and in fact, had called for a report from the investigating agency. Therefore, we do not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J ________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:28.05.2008 VGB/PNB