The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.5163 of 2010 Dated 26th March, 2010 Between: Smt.Madhu Agarwal …Petitioner And 1.Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.Anjali Agarwal for Mr.Kiran Timmalasetti Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: Order: The alleged inaction of respondent No.2 in completing the investigation into Crime No.160 of 2009 and his alleged attempt to force the petitioner and her husband to settle the dispute with the accused are the causes for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he has denied the allegations on both the counts. As regards the first grievance, it is mentioned that during the course of investigation into the abovementioned Crime, the Investigating Officer served notice, dated 23rd February, 2010 on the petitioner requesting her to attend before him and produce documentary evidence and witnesses; that having acknowledged the said notice on the same day, the petitioner failed to attend the office of the Investigating Officer and that the investigation is, therefore, kept pending for want of evidence. He further denied the allegations that the petitioner went to respondent No.2- Police Station at about 2 p.m; that the said respondent has asked her husband to come at 10 p.m; that her husband could not go there as he was on night shift and that he was forcing the petitioner’s husband to settle the matter with the accused by withdrawing the Crime. At the hearing, Ms.Anjali Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that respondent No.2 has not been showing keenness in investigating the case, as he is interested in the accused. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.2 seriously disputed this submission. As Investigating Officer, it is the duty of respondent No.2 to show reasonable despatch in conducting and completing investigation. Ordinarily, a person, who has gone to the extent of filing a private complaint, will not show lethargy or indifference in pursuing the same. Unless it is proved otherwise, the complainant is generally presumed to be serious in pursuing her complaint. Therefore, the stand taken by respondent No.2 that the petitioner has not been producing documents to enable him to complete the investigation does not merit acceptance. Respondent No.2 is directed to visit the petitioner’s place and collect the evidence made available by her by giving an advance notice, complete the investigation and file appropriate final report/chargesheet in the abovementioned Crime before the jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.2 is restrained from bringing pressure on the petitioner or her husband to settle the issue with the accused. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6642 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 26th March, 2010 lur