THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9995 OF 2010 Dated 28th April, 2010 Between: Redrouthu Venkataramanjaneyulu …Petitioner And State of A.P., and 6 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4, in conducting defective investigation and filing defective chargesheet facilitating the accused in CC.No.82 of 2008 pending before the Court of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda , Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to refer in detail to the various averments mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It will suffice to note that the petitioner, who was the first informant at whose instance the above-mentioned Criminal Case has been registered, is not satisfied with the investigation carried on by the Police and chargesheet filed by them against respondent Nos.5 to 7. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. I n Kishan Lal vs. Dharmendra Bafna and another[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that it is permissible for a Magistrate to direct further investigation as it is his duty to see that the investigation is carried out in a fair manner. It was further held that an order for further investigation can be made at various stags including the stage of trial i.e., after taking cognizance of the offence. The petitioner, being the first informant at whose instance the above-mentioned Criminal Case has been registered, is entitled to make appropriate application before the jurisdictional Magistrate by bringing to his notice the various aspects pertaining to the alleged defective investigation and chargesheet. On hearing the petitioner, if the jurisdictional Magistrate is satisfied that further investigation is required, he shall pass an appropriate order in that regard. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.12850 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th April, 2010 lur [1] (2009) 7 SCC 685