IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19340 of 2008 Between: M/s. Astral Informatics Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office At 49-C, Bhawaghar Layout, Dharmapeth, Nagpur -10, having its branch office at 116, Jeera RP Road, Secunderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager Sri Manesh Parekh S/o. Ramesh Parekh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. 2 Sri Anjaneyulu S.I. of Police, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. 3 Sri Balreddy S/o.Yadavreddy R/o.5-4-29, Ferozguda, Balanagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not conducting and completing the investigation into the Crime No.9 of 2008 on the ﬁle of Respondent No.1 against the Respondent No.3 as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to conduct and conclude the investigation forthwith and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19340 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not investigating into Cr.No.9 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Ramgopalpet P.S. as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which is dealing in supply of various products. Alleging that the 3rd respondent herein, having obtained supply of material worth about Rs.4,42,000/- on 5.5.2007, failed to make the payment and the cheques issued by him were dishonoured, when presented for encashment, the petitioner ﬁled a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 and the same was taken up as C.C.No.760 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of the X- Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, CCC, Secunderabad. While the said matter was pending, on 26.9.2007 the 3rd respondent along with his henchmen compelled the petitioner to withdraw the complaint threatening with dire consequences. In the circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to ﬁle a private complaint before the XI-Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the 3rd respondent for the oﬀences under Sections 420 and 506 of I.P.C. Pursuant thereto, the matter was referred by the learned Magistrate to the 1st respondent for investigation. Though the 1st respondent registered the same as Cr.No.9 of 2008 against the 3rd respondent, no further steps have been taken. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent, who was entrusted with the investigation, called the petitioner twice and directed him to settle the matter amicably. Though subsequently the 2nd respondent was transferred, even the newly posted oﬃcer continued to pressurize the petitioner to settle the dispute amicably. Hence the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while pointing out that C.D.No.1033 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, ﬁled by the 3rd respondent herein, alleging that the machine supplied by the petitioner company was defective, ended in dismissal, recording a ﬁnding that there was no defect in the machine supplied by the petitioner, contended that in spite of the said findings wh i ch prima facie established commission of an oﬀence under Section 420 of IPC by the 3rd respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 deliberately failed to complete the investigation and thus allowed the 3rd respondent to perpetuate his highhandedness. Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that this is a ﬁt case to issue a Mandamus as prayed for. It is to be noted that an identical question was considered by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1685 of 2007 (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others). After considering the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and reviewing the decided cases, by Judgment dated 7.12.2007, the Supreme Court held that under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate is satisﬁed that proper investigation has not been done or is not being done by the oﬃcer in-charge of the concerned Police Station, he can certainly direct the Oﬃcer in-charge of the Police Station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same. It is also explained that in view of Section 36 of Cr.P.C. if a person is aggrieved that proper investigation has not been made by the oﬃcer in-charge of the concerned police station such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other Police Oﬃcer superior in rank to the oﬃcer in-charge of the police station and such superior officer can do the investigation. In view of such alternative remedies, the petitioner ought to have availed the appropriate remedy instead of directly approaching this Hon’ble Court. As a matter of fact, since Cr.No.9 of 2008 was registered on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent pursuant to the investigation directed by the Magistrate under section 200 (2) of Cr.P.C., in case there is any deliberate inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2, it is always open to the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, without going into merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate. If any such application is made, the same shall be considered and appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law expeditiously. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.16.09.2008 gbs