IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3744 of 2008 Between: Dr. R. Mohan Naik S/o. Dula Naik R/o. H.No. 80/C, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, P.S. Madhapur, Cyberabad. 3 Dr. Akurathi Nilima W/o. Dr. P. Srinivasulu 4 Dr. P. Srinivasulu S/o. Not known to the petitioner, (R3 and R-4 are R/o. Flat No. 503, Plot No. 132, Sri Vishnu Priya Enclave, Mothinagar, Hyderabad. 5 Station House Officer, P.S. Sanath Nagar, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : None Counsel for Respondent Nos.1,2 & 5: GP for Home The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to properly investigate into crime No. 584 of 2007 by arresting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and direct respondent No.5 to take action on the petitioner’s complaint dated 20.02.2008. At the hearing, none appears for the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that he filed a private complaint against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally as they allegedly cheated him by taking a huge sum of Rs.15,00,00/-, that on reference by the learned Magistrate, respondent No.2 registered FIR No. 584 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007 for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but did not choose to arrest respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner further alleged that respondent No.2 is not investigating the case properly. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home stated that after investigation, respondent No.5 filed charge sheet in C.C.No. 87 of 2008 on 17.01.2008 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 surrendered themselves before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 22.02.2008 and were granted bail. In view of the above-mentioned developments, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, W.P.M.P.No. 4884 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous. (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 24th March, 2008 ksld