IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1064 of 2008 Between: Smt. K. Jayashree … Petitioner AND Government of A.P., Home Department, Rep., by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1064 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not completing the investigation in respect of crime No.184 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to complete the investigation and take further action as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has taken adjournment on the previous three occasions, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is displaying lethargic attitude in completing the investigation and filing a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The record reveals that the complaint filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate was registered as crime No.184 of 2006 and so far respondent No.2 has not been able to complete the investigation and file the report. In my considered opinion, passage of about two years from the date of registration of crime is too long a period not to complete the investigation in a matter where too many complicated facts do not appear to have been involved. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, stated that on 27.03.2008 respondent No.2 sent the sample signatures of the petitioner and respondent No.3 for handwriting expert and that he is awaiting the report. Though, she has not offered any explanation for the inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.2 in sending the sample signatures for an expert, I am not inclined to dilate on that aspect for the present. In the view I am taking, I find it unnecessary to give notice to respondent No.3. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to complete the investigation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.1270 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.04.2008 ES