IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2703 of 2009 Between: Smt. V. Suchitra, w/o. V. Gopal Rao, R/o. 334-A BHEL Township, R.C. Puram, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Lingampally, Medak District. 2 V. Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. V. Gopal Rao, R/o. 1-1-511, C.C. Nagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. .....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 to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not discharging his statutory duties in arresting the 2nd respondent who is accused No. 4, in connection with Crime No. 24 of 2009 for outraging the modesty of the petitioner and subjecting her to cruelty, though other accused persons have been arrested and sent to judicial custody on 3-2- 2009 and more particularly the in the presence of the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 as illegal, arbitrary and abuse of process of law and consequently direct the Respondent No. 1 to arrest the respondent No. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MEKALASRINIVAS YADAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that based on her complaint, the 1st respondent-Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, on 16.01.2009, registered a Cr.No.24 of 2009 against the 2nd respondent- A4 and others for outraging her modesty. Her grievance is that though the other accused were arrested and remanded in judicial custody on 3.2.2009, the 1st respondent is not discharging his statutory duty in arresting the 2nd respondent, in connection with the above crime. On 27.02.2009, when the matter was called, none appeared for the petitioner. Even today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner nor is made any representation on his behalf. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that during the course of investigation, he examined four witnesses, including the petitioner-de facto complainant and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and since the date of commission of offence, the 2nd respondent is absconding, and he came to know that the 2nd respondent obtained anticipatory bail from the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in Crl.M.P. No.108 of 2009 dated 16.2.2009. It is further stated that investigation is almost completed and charge sheet will be filed shortly. Since the 2nd respondent is said to have obtained anticipatory bail in connection with the crime in question, registered on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in not arresting him, and having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit, that the 2nd respondent completed the investigation and would file charge sheet shortly, no orders need be passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 30th March, 2009 bcj