IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16941 of 2008 Between: P. Radha Rani, W/o. Perla Nagakumar Reddy, R/o. H.No. 1-1181-3, Yerramukkhapally, Kadapa - 002. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 Inspector of Police, Yerraguntla P.S. Kadapa District. 3 Sub-Inspector of Police, Yerraguntla P.S. Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in investigating the Crime No. 120/2007 dated 16-8-2007 on the ﬁle of Yerraguntla Police Station, Kadapa, highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct them to investigate the said crime and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16941 of 2008 Order: The writ petition is mis-conceived. According to the averments in the aﬃdavit in support of the writ petition, the petitioner’s husband one Perla Nagakumar Reddy, was murdered on the night of 15.8.2007. It would appear that the father of the deceased, Sri Shiva Reddy, lodged a police a complaint on 16.8.2007 and Crime No. 120 of 2007 was registered on the ﬁle of Yerraguntla Police Station, as a consequence. Apprehending that the motive behind the murder is property disputes between the petitioner’s deceased husband and his other relatives, the petitioner sensitized this apprehension and suspicion to the investigating oﬃcers, including respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner also approached the 1st respondent through a representation dated 24.9.2007 for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to conduct neutral and professional investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner represented to a variety of authorities and institutions, including the Hon’ble Chief Minister, seeking entrustment of the investigation to the C.B.C.I.D. Petitioner asserts that the Hon’ble Chief Minister entrusted the investigation in Crime No. 120 of 2007 to the C.B.C.I.D. and that on 23.11.2007, an Inspector from the C.B.C.I.D. had approached the petitioner and recorded her statement as also that of her father and brother. In para-4 of the writ petition, the petitioner alleges that despite the entrustment of the investigation to the C.B.C.I.D., the respondents are continuing with the investigation. The petitioner also states to have approached the State Human Rights Commission qua H.R. Case No. 2615/2007, alleging biased and lopsided investigation by the respondents. The 1st respondent ﬁled a response before the State Commission wherein the 1st respondent has speciﬁcally stated in his report dated 15.2.2008 that the case was investigated by the local police and is now referred to the C.B.C.I.D. at the request of the petitioner. Petitioner now alleges that despite the matter being entrusted to the C.B.C.I.D., the respondents 2 and 3 are continuing to investigate into Crime No. 120 of 2007 and that she apprehends that parallel investigation, one by the C.B.C.I.D., and the other by the respondents 2 and 3, would lead to an anomalous situation. There is nothing in the entirety of the aﬃdavit, which, either expressly or by any reasonable implication, would justify an inference that the matter despite having been entrusted to the C.B.C.I.D. for investigation is nevertheless being investigated also by the Respondents 2 and 3. The allegation is bald and in the absence of any material facts pleaded in support of such allegation, such allegation appears to be a ﬁgment of the petitioner’s imagination. The petitioner’s apprehensions are speculative and have no basis in any facts pleaded. The writ petition cannot be a platform for making wild, baseless and un-substantiated allegations. An individual coming to the Court must set out the material facts, which form the basis for the grievance. The writ petition is wholly bereft of any particulars and therefore warrants no further proceeding. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 5th August, 2008 pnb