THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5983 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the above accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondent No.2 in proceeding with the investigation in Cr.No.64/2010 on the file of P.S. Medipally, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.” Petitioner has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against one J.Mahender Yadav and others before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. In the complaint, he stated that his father, by name, Shaik Pasha Miya was the original pattadar of land in an extent of Acs.2.11 guntas, Ac.1.30 guntas, Acs.2.05 guntas, Ac.1.02 guntas, Ac.1.08 guntas and Ac.1.10 guntas, totally admeasuring Acs.9.26 guntas, covered by Survey Nos.1 to 5, 25 and 26 situated at Miyapur, Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, and that the accused named therein have fabricated the documents by impersonating and forged the signatures of his late father. On such complaint, the matter was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There upon, a case in Crime No.64 of 2010 was registered on the file of Uppal Police Station for the offences under Sections 416, 419, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and later, the same was transferred to Medipally Police Station. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the crime was registered as early as in January, 2010, the second respondent – Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station, Ranga Reddy, is not proceeding with the investigation. It is alleged that at the instance of respondents 3 to 9, the second respondent is insisting on the petitioner to settle the matter. Based on written instructions, dated 14.03.2011, sent by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Medipally Police Station, Cyberabad, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that after registration of the complaint, steps were taken for sending the disputed signatures to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for opinion and subsequently, the said FSL authorities addressed to the investigating agency to send some more documents and the same were also sent. It is further submitted that after receipt of report from FSL, final report would be filed as expeditiously as possible. With regard to interference, it is submitted that except the investigation, which respondents 1 and 2 are making in the crime registered, there is no interference and respondents 1 and 2 are not insisting on the petitioner to settle the matter. A perusal of the written instructions indicates that a letter of advice was sent to FSL for analysis and opinion and that certain documents were sent to FSL authorities as requested by them vide letter, dated 06.10.2010. In this connection, a notice was issued on 03.11.2010 to the petitioner to furnish certain documents in order to forward the same to FSL authorities. On collecting documents from the petitioner, a requisition was filed on 25.11.2010 before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate has ordered to forward such documents to FSL for comparison of signatures and opinion of the handwriting expert, vide proceedings in Dis.No.1743/2010, dated 04.12.2010 and the same is pending consideration by FSL authorities. In view of the above, it is evident that from the stage of registration of crime, the police are taking steps to investigate into the matter, as such, it cannot be said that they are not investigating into the complaint of the petitioner. Further, as it is stated that final report would be filed immediately after receipt of report from the authorities concerned, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to complete the investigation and submit final report, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from today. I am sure that if FSL report is not received immediately, the police will address to it for sending the report so as to file final report as per the orders of this Court. However, with regard to grievance of the petitioner that there is interference by the second respondent and he is being insisted on to settle the matter, the same is denied. Placing on record such statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on behalf of the second respondent, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions referred to above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th MARCH, 2011. kvni