IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21638 of 2008 Between: Chelikani Kishore S/o. Krishna Rao R/o. Thana Street, Rajam, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District at Srikakulam. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. 3 The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajam Police Station, Rajam Srikakulam District. 4 Chelikani Saraswathi W/o. Mohan Rao R/o. Thana Street, Rajam Srikakulam 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 or order or Direction more particulary one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in holding at the remand stage itself that there is no evidence against the respondent No.4 herein / Accused No.5 in Crime no. 147 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Rajam Police Station, Srikakulam District,thought there is suﬃcient material to proceed against her, thereby paving the way for removing her name from the chargesheet, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is further consequentially prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 and 2 take appropriate action in this regard by considerngi and disposing of the represntation / legal notice got issued by the father of the petitioner by name Chelikam Krishna Rao dated 03-0\9-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.21638 OF 2008 ORDER This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the 3rd respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajam P.S. in not investigating in Cr.No.147 of 2008 properly, is arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action by considering the representation of the petitioner dated.03-09- 2008. This Court while directing rule nisi by order dated.30-09- 2008 directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated.03-09-2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In compliance with the same the petitioner’s representation was considered and the learned Government Pleader for Home under instructions stated that by letter dated.27-10-2008 the petitioner’s counsel was already informed about the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the said fact. In the circumstances without going into the merits of the case the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy before the competent court of law for redressal of his grievance if any. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 5th November,2008 *TSNR