IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19086 of 2011 Between: Yasa Mohan Reddy ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary for Home, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Home The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in excluding the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as accused in Chargesheet, dated 15-06-2005, in Crime No.351 of 2005 of Respondent No.3- Chaitanyapuri Police Station, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to conduct a further investigation by CBCID and file additional chargesheet under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). I have heard Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that, in connection with a land dispute between him and respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.4 hatched a plan with respondent No.5 and some others and kidnapped him on 27-04-2005 and forcibly confined him at a distant place for 1½ days. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the chargesheet filed in Crime No.351 of 2005, registered on the complaint made by his son, respondent No.3 excluded respondent Nos.4 and 5, from being arraigned as accused. In my opinion, the petitioner ought to have first approached the competent Criminal Court, before which the case is pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., seeking appropriate directions for further investigation and filing additional chargesheet. Even though, by a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court held that the power to order further investigation is vested in the superior Courts, it has further left a note of caution that ordinarily, the Courts would not interfere with the power of Police to investigate save and except in some exceptional situations (see Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel V. State of Gujarat[1], Ramachandran vs. R.Udhayakumar[2] a n d Kishan Lal V. Dharmendra Bafna and another[3]). While it is no doubt true that in such situations, this Court has the power to order further investigation, such a power also inheres in the Criminal Court, before which the case is pending (see Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration and anr[4]., Gudalure M.J.Cherian vs. Union of India[5]). Therefore, I see no justification for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court straight away without first approaching the competent Criminal Court, before which the case is pending. Accordingly, while declining to interfere with the criminal proceedings at this stage, the petitioner is permitted to file appropriate application before the Sessions Court before which the case is stated to have been pending for trial after committal. If such an application is filed, the learned Sessions Judge shall consider the same and take appropriate decision thereon before proceeding further with the trial. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.23045 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 8th July, 2011 lur [1] 2009 (6) SCC 332 [2] (2008) 5 SCC 413 [3] (2009) 7 SCC 685 [4] 1988 (Supple.) SCC 482 [5] 1992 (1) SCC 397