IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.23042 OF 2007 Between: Syed Abdul Sattar. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Asadullah Shareef. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not investigating and recovering the stolen property in Crime No.124 of 2007 of Meerchowk Police Station, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and discriminatory. Heard Sri Asadullah Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The grievance of the petitioner is that though two crimes, viz., Crime No.124 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 457, 380 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; and Crime No.172 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 420, 380, 384 and 120-B IPC, were registered on the complaint made by him, the investigation being made by respondent No.5 is tardy and recovery of stolen property is not made as yet. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Meerchowk Police Station, respondent No.5 herein, it is stated that consequent on the registration of Crime No.124 of 2007 the investigating officer examined five witnesses, including the petitioner, and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C; that while the investigation held so far revealed that the complaint is an offshoot of a civil dispute, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged act of theft of articles from the Mulgies and no one is suspected in the Crime; and that the investigation is under progress. It is further stated that A.1 to A.6 obtained anticipatory bail from the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences- cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on 12-7-2007, and as the accused have not been co-operating with the investigation, respondent No.5 is contemplating to file a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. With regard to Crime No.172 of 2007, it is stated that the investigation officer examined the petitioner and recorded his detailed statement, and one Sri Nandlal Advocate, who is cited as a witness in the private complaint of the petitioner, has not turned up to give his statement as a witness. Respondent No.5 undertook to take necessary steps against the accused in the said Crimes on the evidence collected during the course of investigation, including recovery of stolen property. He also stated that he would see that investigation in both the crimes is completed as expeditiously as possible and appropriate reports/charge-sheets will be filed before the jurisdictional Court at the earliest. Since the above mentioned counter-affidavit was filed on 10-12-2007, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.5 to complete the investigation and file the reports/charge-sheets in both the afore-mentioned crimes, if not already done, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 21-4-2008 MNR