IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 16223 OF 2009 Between: G.Bhavani Shankar …… petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and another. ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.16223 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to appoint any other Investigating Officer to register the case on the complaint dated 15.07.2009 against culprits and investigate the same in the interest of justice. The case of the petitioner is that he was the tenant of one Rupak Roy in Flat No.501 Sreedevi Residency Bholokpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. The petitioner’s erstwhile landlord, in collusion with antisocial elements by name Praveen Naidu, Ramesh and other, conspired criminally and hatched a plan to commit harm to his person and property with a mala fide intention to deprive his right of tenancy. Out of their ill-design, taking help of the 2nd respondent, Inspector of Police, illegally, extracted undertaking from the petitioner forcefully by coercion and criminally intimidating to him and his daughters with dire consequences. The said persons break open his lock in his absence on 30.06.2009 and shifted entire belongings such as T.V Colour, Refrigerator Computer etc., and the same was noticed by the petitioner on 01.07.2009. In this regard, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent with a complaint to register a case against the said persons for the offences committed against him and his property. But the 2nd respondent deliberately expressed his un-willingness to receive the petitioner’s complaint to take any action. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is illegal and bad in law. In such a situation, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.07.2009 to the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Police, who in turn made an endorsement on the said complaint on 18.07.2009 and then he approached Deputy Commissioner of Police, who also made an endorsement directing the 2nd respondent to take necessary action. The 2nd respondent impatiently had gone through the contention of the document and thrown upon his face stating that he is least worry about his bosses and their endorsements. By the behaviour and illegal action of 2nd respondent, the petitioner worried and humiliated and therefore, he filed the present writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Home, based on the written instructions of the 2nd respondent, submitted that it is true that the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and lodged a complaint on 15.07.2009 against his landlord Sri Rupak Roy for his illegal acts. On receipt of the complaint, the 1st respondent forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, for taking necessary action. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for taking necessary action. On receipt of the complaint, the 2nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.264 of 2009 under Sections 448, 379 and 506 IPC on 13.09.2009 and investigating into the matter. Soon after completion of the investigation, report/charge sheet will be filed at the earliest. Eventually, denied the personal allegations made against the Investigating Officer. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he made a representation to the 1st respondent that was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent failed to take any action for which, the learned Government Pleader submitted that based on the complaint dated 15.07.2009 lodged by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.264 of 2009 and he is investigating into the mater. Soon after completion of the investigation, the 2nd respondent is going to file a report/charge sheet. It is also sought by the petitioner to appoint any other Investigating Officer for which, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in support of his allegations against the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent specifically denied the personal allegations made against him. Therefore, it is not appropriate to pass any direction in this regard. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take necessary action, in accordance with law, and complete the investigation, as expeditiously as possible, and submit the report/charge sheet. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH September 22, 2009. IVD/LSK