IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13120 of 2001 Between: 1 Dr.Smt. Suraj agarwal W/o Sri. Narenderlal Agarwal R/o Narender Market, 4-2-94, Badi Chowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. 2 Sri. Narenderlal Agarwal, S/o late Balkishanlal agarwal R/o Narender Market, 4-2-94, Badi Chowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. 3 Sri. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal S/o Sri.Narenderlal Agarwal R/o Narender Market, 4-2-94, Badi Chowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Through Deputy Secretary to Government, Home (Police C) Department Secretariate, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner o Police, Hyderabad City, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad. 3 Sri. A.Srinivas S/o A.Mohan at Mozam Zahi Market, Police Station House, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to pass writ or order particularly Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders of the respondent no.2 herein in order D.O.No.1821/2001, No.L&O/N5/744/2001, dtL 28-5-2001 as arbitrary, illegal perverse against the records and law Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners question the orders of the second respondent- Commissioner of Police rejecting their request for grant of prosecution to prosecute the 3rd respondent, formerly Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulthanbazar Police Station. It is the case of the petitioners that on a private complaint filed by one Laxman Rao against them, the Court concerned referred the matter to the Police Station, Sulathanbazar for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the said police registered a case in Crime No.91 of 1997 for the offences under Sections 452, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the petitioners and after investigating the crime, charge sheet has been filed and the petitioners were acquitted by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No. 666 of 1997 by judgment dated 17.08.1999. It is stated that as there was malicious prosecution and the petitioners were wrongfully prosecuted, the petitioners have filed a private complaint and thereafter, a representation has been made before the Commissioner of Police on 15.02.2001 requesting for sanction of prosecution. As the said representation was not considered and disposed of, the petitioners filed W.P.No.1919 of 2001 which was disposed of on 23.04.2001 directing the Commissioner of Police to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners. Accordingly, the said representation was considered and the request of the petitioners for sanction of prosecution was rejected. It is the case of the petitioners that even the third respondent has not properly investigated the case and he is liable to be prosecuted for certain offences under Sections 120-B, 500, 504, 468, 469, 471, 166, 193, 109 r/w 34 IPC and 192 IPC and therefore, they sought for permission for prosecuting him. The said representation has been considered by the Commissioner of Police and rejected the same on the ground that he has carefully considered the representation of the petitioners and observed that the third respondent on receipt of private complaint from the criminal Court registered the case and investigated into the matter strictly in accordance with law and there was no mala fide intention on the part of the third respondent and no lapses were committed by him during the course of investigation and therefore, the request of the petitioners to grant sanction to prosecute the third respondent cannot be permitted. I have perused the judgment of the criminal Court in C.C.No.666 of 1997. There were no observations made by the criminal Court with regard to the lapses or malicious prosecution of the petitioners. The criminal Court simply observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the offences alleged against the petitioners and in the absence of any specific observations of the criminal Court, it cannot be said that the third respondent has not properly investigated the case and that there was malicious prosecution or that he was colluded with the de facto complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merits in the writ petition to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Police and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:09.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SRAVAN}