IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22156 of 2009 Between: Katikaneni Leelakumari … Petitioner And The Circle Inspector of Police, P.S. Luxettipet, Luxetipet, Adilabad District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. K.Pallavi for Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondents 3&4: Sri V. Ravinder Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22156 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in filing final report dated 28.02.2009 in Crime No.10 of 2009 without recording the petitioner’s statement and serving a copy of the final report on her, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and the accused E. Posham had civil disputes among them. On coming to know that a decree was purportedly passed on 22.11.1979 in O.S.No.943 of 1979 filed by the said Posham by playing fraud, the petitioner lodged a complaint in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet on 03.12.2008, which was referred to respondent No.1 under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). On such reference, Crime No.10 of 2009 was registered by respondent No.1 against the accused for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that even without recording her statement as complainant, respondent No.1 colluded with the accused and filed final report dated 28.02.2009. Her further grievance is that even a copy of the said final report was not served on her. On 01.07.2010, during the hearing, this Court noticed a glaring discrepancy between letter dated 22.02.2009 addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 and the final report stated to have been filed by him regarding examination of the petitioner and recording her statement. Therefore, this Court called upon respondent No.1 to file his personal affidavit to explain the said discrepancy. Accordingly, P. Komaraiah, who was the Inspector of Police of Luxettipet at the relevant time, filed his counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it is, inter alia, stated that the statement contained in para 2 of his letter dated 22.02.2009 addressed to respondent No.2 is an unintentional mistake and therefore the said statement is not correct. In view of the serious discrepancy, as noted above, it is necessary to refer to the said statement. In the unnumbered para 2 of his letter dated 22.02.2009, it is stated as under: “Basing on the above complaint, a case in Cr.No.10 of 2009 u/s. 419, 420, 468 IPC r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C., was registered. Since the complainant is residing at Hyderabad, I could not record her statement and I will examine the complainant at a subsequent date.” Having said that, respondent No.1 in the immediately next paragraph stated as below: “During the course of investigation examined the complainant, (LW-1) her advocate (LW-2) and her nephew (LW-3) and recorded their statements u/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., detail in Part- II case diary.” In contrast to what he has stated in the said letter, in the final report it is stated that during the course of investigation LW-4 (respondent No.1) examined the complainant as LW.1. In my opinion, it is inconceivable, if respondent No.1, being the investigating officer, has examined the complainant, that he will have any occasion to state that as the complainant was residing at Hyderabad, he could not record her statement and that he will examine the complainant at a subsequent date. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the explanation of respondent No.1 that such a statement would have been made by him inadvertently. There are further reasons for this Court to view the conduct of respondent No.1 with suspicion. The first page of final report filed by him contains correction in the date in column No.3. For the naked eye it is clear that initially the date was typed as ‘28’, which was altered with a pen by overwriting on ‘2’ as ‘1’. However, under the signature of respondent No.1, the date ‘18/2/2009’ is mentioned. More curious is the fact that respondent No.2 has given his approval for permission to file a final report on 27.02.2009, but, respondent No.1 has prepared the final report and signed the same on 18.02.2009, as noted earlier. This clearly shows that respondent No.1 has prepared and singed the final report even before respondent No.2 has given his approval. These aspects coupled with the grievance of the petitioner that she was not even given a notice before filing the final report, which is mandatory under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., clearly show that respondent No.1 has not acted fairly and impartially in dealing with the investigation and obviously manipulated the record. Ordinarily, this case warrants setting aside of the final report and ordering fresh investigation. However, admittedly, the accused has died. In view of this event, no purpose will be served in directing fresh investigation. However, this Court is convinced that respondent No.1 deserves departmental action. The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, is directed to initiate appropriate departmental action against respondent No.1 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit a report to this Court. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.28764 of 2009 filed for early disposal of the case is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.07.2010 ES