HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1727 of 2008 Dated: February 15, 2008 Between: Ediga Padmamma, W/o. Venkataiah, aged about 35 years, R/o. Veerapuram village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting enquiry into the incident of putting fire to the petitioner’s dwelling house at Veerapur village of Kulkacherla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioner is eking out livelihood by doing cooli work and she and her family members are supporters of Telugu Desam party. It is alleged that one Mr. Sahadeva Reddy and his brother Mahadeva Reddy, of Veerapur village, who belong to Congress party, have instigated one Gali Dastaiah and others who put fire to the hut of the petitioner. It is stated that though a complaint is lodged before the first respondent on 08-08-2007 about the said incident, no action is being taken. 4. This court issued notice before admission on 01-02-2008 and directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to the steps taken on the complaint of the petitioner. 5. On instructions, it is submitted by learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that petitioner lodged a complaint before the respondents stating that two persons by name Gali Dastaiah and Ribbanoni Narasimha have set fire to her hut and requested to take action. It is stated that petitioner has also named some third parties who were present nearby at that time. It is stated that based on the complaint of the petitioner, a case in Cr.No.91 of 2007 for the alleged offences under Sections 307 and 436 IPC was registered, and investigation was taken up immediately. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, it was found that the said persons were not present at the scene of offence and hence their names were deleted. It is also stated that after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. 6. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the names of the persons who were involved in the offence were deleted, however, at this stage, this court cannot go into the said aspect. It is to be seen that Police have already investigated into the case and also filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C and the case is numbered as P.R.C.No.44/2007. If the petitioner, is in any way, aggrieved, it is open to her to file her objections in the said P.R.C. before the Magistrate concerned. Moreover, the persons against whom petitioner has made allegations are not made party respondents in the writ petition. Hence, no direction as sought for can be given. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed keeping open to the petitioner to avail any other remedy open under law. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 15, 2008 MRR