THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.3856 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner is an association of depositors in the 8th respondent company. It is stated that the 8th respondent has collected huge deposits from various persons and has deceived them. On a complaint made in this regard, Crime No. 415 of 1999 was registered by Chikkadpally Police Station. The petitioner states that proper and effective investigation can take place only if the case is transferred from respondent No.3 to the C.B.C.I.D.-the 5th respondent. The petitioner has narrated the various acts and omissions on the part of the 8th respondent. The writ petition was admitted way back on 22.12.2000 and no interim order was passed. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed by the Inspector of Police, Diverting Attention Team, Central Crime Station. It is stated that the investigation into the case was taken up and initially the Managing Director of the 8th respondent company was arrested. It is stated that taking advantage of the bail granted by the court of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 03.01.2000, the 9th respondent had escaped. Efforts made for nabbing are said to have been futile though the bail was cancelled. It is stated that efforts are being made to apprehend all the accused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner wants the case to be investigated by the 5th respondent. During the pendency of the writ petition, the crime was taken up for trial and the proceedings were initiated in the court of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as C.C.No.106 of 2003. It is stated that the case against A.1 (9th respondent) split up, since he was absconding. A.2 and A.3-respondents 10 and 11 are said to have been acquitted by the court on 22.12.2006. The case in Crime No.415 of 1999 has crossed the stage of investigation. Trial has taken place and two of the accused have been acquitted. Therefore, question of entrusting the case for investigation to 5th respondent does not arise. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 31-12.2008 Stp