IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3621 of 2009 Between: S. Ram Reddy, S/o. S. Narayan Reddy, R/o. H.No. 8-4-90/71, Ayodhyanagar, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. 2 L. Vishnu Kumar, S/o. Ramloo, R/o. H.nO. 2-3-309, Nallagutta, ‘ Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not completing the investigation in Cr.No.225 of 2008 is illegal, arbitrary and further direct the 1st respondent to complete the investigation in Cr.No.225/2008 and file the charge sheet before the appropriate court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. This writ petition is filed questioning action of the first respondent in not completing the investigation in Cr.No.225 of 2008 and to direct the 1st respondent to complete the investigation and file charge sheet before the appropriate Court. The case of the petitioner is that on the instigation of the second respondent, he agreed to purchase plot bearing H.No.8-2- 120/76/2 & 3 in Sy.No.129/92 of Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad from one Smt. Lakshmi Bai W/o. Late Narotham Dass, for a consideration of Rs.18 lakhs, and accordingly, on 30.04.2005 he paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the said Lakshmi Bai in the presence of the second respondent, and entered into an agreement of sale. The second respondent signed on the said agreement of sale as a witness. Thereafter, original link document dated 19.11.1966 has also been handed over to the petitioner in the presence of the second respondent. While so, the second respondent took the link document from the petitioner stating that the same is required for verification. In spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner the second respondent did not return the same. Hence the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the XI Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. On reference, the first respondent registered the same as F.I.R.No.225 of 2008 dated 6.08.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of registering the Crime, the first respondent is not completing the investigation and not filing the charge sheet. The first respondent filed counter affidavit stating that though the investigating officer requested the petitioner to produce the documents and the witnesses, he did not turn up. Prima facie case has not yet established to prove the guilt of the second respondent herein, and the delay occurred in completing the investigation is neither willful nor wanton. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the crime was registered on 6.08.2008, the police have not completed the investigation till date. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, the writ petitioner is directed to produce the material before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation and file charge sheet/report as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. ________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J.) 4th March, 2009 Js.