THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.15508 of 2007 (Dated: 31-03-2010) Between: M/s.Chaitanya Mahila Mandali Rep. by its President Smt. K.Neeraja, Addanki, Prakasam District. …Petitioner A n d The Superintendent of Police, Ongole Prakasham District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.15508 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by M/s.Chaitanya Mahila Mandali, Addanki, represented by its President Smt. K.Neeraja assailing the action of the respondents in not conducting investigation and filing charge sheet in Crime No.118 of 2005 of Addanki P.S., Prakasham District. 2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in brief, is: The petitioner filed a complaint before Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki against Ponuri Arogyam and 8 others for the offences under Sections 120-B, 464, 468 and 420 of IPC. The said complaint came to be forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Station House Officer, Addanki P.S-2nd respondent herein. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2005. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not conducting investigation properly and not making any efforts to arrest the culprits. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 23.07.2007. The 2nd respondent entered appearance and filed counter. 4. One Mohd. Moin, Sub Inspector of Police, Addanki P.S., has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the case filed by the petitioner has been referred as `CIVIL IN NATURE’. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the whereabouts of the petitioner are not available for serving the copy of the final report. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the counter affidavit need to be noted and they are thus:- “3. I respectfully submit that the records revealed that the investigation officer is unable to examine the complainant (the petitioner herein) since her whereabouts are not known and she never turned up to the respondent police station. The records further revealed that, as per the documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation and enquiries caused in this case, revealed that as there are cases pending before the concerned Hon’ble Court with regard to the dispute of the petitioner herein, the then Investigation Officer obtained permission from the higher authorities and referred the complaint of the petitioner as CIVIL IN NATURE. It was also stated by the Investigation Officer in his letter dated 24.3.2006 addressed to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Darsi that “in future, if any useful information is forthcoming, the case of the petitioner will be reopened and investigated”. 4. I respectfully submit that though the final report is prepared on 30.3.2006, due to non-availability of the petitioner the same could not be served on her till date. Hence, final report is not filed before the concerned Hon’ble Court. I submit that the records reveal that the Investigation Officer also filed a memo before the Hon’ble Court requesting the Hon’ble Magistrate to direct the Advocates of the complainant/petitioner to produce the complainant before the police for enquiry into the matter. In spite of several requests made by the investigation officer, the petitioner/complainant did not turn up to the police station nor gave evidence to record her statement and did not produce any documentary evidence to show that the accused in the private complaint committed the offence”. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent never made any attempt to examine the petitioner, and therefore, the investigation allegedly conducted by the 2nd respondent is not proper and necessary direction is required to be given to the 2nd respondent for recording the statement of the petitioner as a part of investigation in Crime No.118 of 2005. 6. As seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent completed investigation, and treated the case as `Civil in nature’. Since the 2nd respondent recorded the statement of the witnesses in Crime No.118 of 2005 and came to the conclusion that the case is civil in nature, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse available under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.31.03.2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.15508 of 2007 (Dated : 31-03-2010)