IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20849 OF 2010 Between: Sri A.Vinod Kumar .....PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner of Police and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20849 OF 2010 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 was withholding the body parts of his deceased wife without analyzing the same since 22.05.2010. He seeks a consequential direction to forward the body parts of his deceased wife to the Forensic Laboratory, Government of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No.6, for furnishing a report after due analysis. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad, by way of written instructions dated 23.08.2010 stated that the body of the petitioner’s deceased wife was sent for post-mortem to the Osmania General Hospital, respondent No.5, and the post-mortem report was submitted stating that the “Clinical and postmortem findings are suggestive of death due to post Hystero Salpingogram Iodine Hypersensitivity. An uncommon complication”. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Golconda Police Station, stated that a letter was addressed to the Head of the Department, Forensic Medicine, Osmania General Hospital, respondent No.5, seeking a clarification as to the meaning of ‘an uncommon complication’. He further stated that as soon as a response was received, further steps would be taken in the investigation. Ms. G. Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the report of the post-mortem furnished by respondent No.5 – Hospital was suspect as it is not the usual procedure for the doctors to not only mention the cause of death, but also state to the effect that such cause was uncommon. This, according to the learned counsel, indicated bias on the part of the doctors, who submitted the said report. She therefore asserted that justice would not be done unless the Forensic Laboratory, Government of Andhra Pradesh, was involved in the matter so as to ascertain the actual cause of death of the petitioner’s wife. In substance, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the mode and manner in which the investigation in Crime No.143 of 2010 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad, is proceeding. Though the police authorities state that they will take necessary further steps in the matter after receiving a response from respondent No.5 – Hospital, the fact remains that since May, 2010, there has been no progress. However, this Court is mindful of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.[1], with regard to the efficacious alternative remedy available to the complainants in such cases. If there are lapses on the part of the police authorities in investigating an offence, the proper course, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the aforestated decision, is for the complainant to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The magistrate is empowered to monitor the investigative process so as to obtain proper investigation in the matter. Needless to state, by virtue of the said provision, the magistrate concerned can hands-on monitor the investigation into the death of the petitioner’s wife so as to ascertain the cause thereof and affix responsibility therefor. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR August 23, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20849 OF 2010 August 23, 2010 [1]( 2008) 2 SCC 409