THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22480 of 2006 Dated 29th June, 2010 Between: Subhash Kumar Gupta. …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Malla Reddy Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is fled for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 30.07.2005 for conduct of further investigation by an investigation agency other than respondent No.3 in Crime No.121 of 2002 and the action of respondent No.3 in deleting accused Nos.3 to 7 therein from the array of accused as illegal. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to record the facts in detail. It would suffice to note that on the basis of a report given by the petitioner against seven accused, Crime No.121 of 2001 was registered. The grievance of the petitioner is that though accusations were mainly made against accused Nos.3 to 7, their names were deleted from the array of accused while filing the charge sheet. The further grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given any notice by the Police before filing the final report with regard to accused Nos.3 to 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the case was taken cognisance by II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, as C.C.No.743 of 2002 and has been subsequently renumbered as C.C.No.1248 of 2009 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. In my opinion, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate before which the case is pending. Under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate is empowered to order for further investigation, if he is satisfied that the Police have not properly carried on the investigation or that the real accused have been omitted while filing the charge sheet (See Kishan Lal vs. Dharmendra Bafna[1] and Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration[2]). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file appropriate petition before IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, in C.C.No.1248 of 2009. If such a petition is filed, the learned Magistrate shall examine the same and take appropriate decision on the same before proceeding with the trial of the case. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th June, 2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN [1] (2009) 7 SCC 685 [2] (1988) Supp. SCC 482