HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24132 of 2010 Date: 22nd November 2010 Between : Katakam Lakshmi Venkata Naga Sravanthi. …….Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24132 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 5 in not considering her representations, dated 18.04.2010 and 18.06.2010, for investigation and arrest of respondent No.6 in Crime No.58 of 2010 on the file of Macherla Police Station, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Junior Civil Judge, Marcherla against respondent No.6 and others, stating that she was married to one Katakam Kiran Gupta two years ago, and lived happily for about two years, and thereafter, her husband and his family members started harassing her physically and mentally for additional dowry. On such complaint, the matter was referred to Macherla Police Station in Guntur District, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for investigation. Based on such reference, a case in Crime No.58 of 2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 were arrested on 22.03.2010 and remanded to judicial custody. A man missing case is also registered in Crime No.224 of 2009 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada, against accused No.1, who is the husband of the petitioner, and the same is under investigation. So far as respondent No.6 herein is concerned, he is the brother of accused No.1 and is shown as accused No.4 in Crime No.58 of 2010. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of her complaint, though a case was registered against respondent No.6 herein, he was not arrested and no steps are being taken against him by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that there is no clinching evidence against respondent No.6 herein, who is shown as accused No.4 in Crime No.58 of 2010, and that the matter is under investigation. When a case is registered in Crime No.58 of 2010 on reference by the Magistrate and the matter is under investigation, it is not open for the petitioner to seek directions by way of Mandamus, to take steps for arrest of respondent No.6. If the investigation is not conducted properly, the petitioner as well can file her objections before the Magistrate concerned, after filing of final report by the Police. Even before completion of investigation, it cannot be said that the investigation is not made properly, merely because respondent No.6 herein is not arrested. In that view of the matter, keeping it open to the petitioner to raise her objections or to seek appropriate directions from the Magistrate concerned, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd November 2010 ajr