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 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3741 of 2008 Between: S.Subhan Reddy S/o.Papi Reddy R/o. Tandur Village & Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad. 2 Sri Bhaskar Amberpet, P.S. Hyderabad. 3 Sri.G.Ramulu Yalal, Ranga REddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry against respondent Nos.2 and 3 in pursuance of petitioner’s representation, dated 22.09.2007. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. In his affidavit, the petitioner alleged that in an altercation between the petitioner and one M.A.Hadi, a rowdy sheeter of Tandur, who tried to grab the petitioner’s land, the latter stabbed the petitioner on his stomach with crowbar causing bleeding injuries; that on his complaint, a criminal case was registered as Crime No.211 of 2004 under Sections 307 and 447 IPC and that respondent No.2 was the investigating officer, who seized the crowbar and iron rod apart from the bloodstained clothes of the petitioner in the presence of panchas. The petitioner further alleged that in collusion with the said rowdy sheeter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 registered a case against the petitioner as Crime No.210 of 2004 and the said respondents attended the criminal Court and gave evidence on 10.09.2007 to the effect that they have not seized bloodstained clothes from the petitioner. He averred that he made a representation on 22.09.2007 to respondent No.1 on the mischief committed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and in giving false evidence regarding the seizure of bloodstained clothes. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite filing the said representation, no action has been taken. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chevella Division filed a counter affidavit and in paras 5 and 6 of the same, it is averred as under: “I further respectfully submit that the enquiries further revealed that the Sub Inspector of Police Mr. K.Bhaskar appears to have played mischief in this case suppressing the facts by not seizing the bloodstained clothes in this case. I submit that I have submitted my enquiry report requesting the 1st respondent to take disciplinary action against the Sub Inspector of Police, Mr.Bhaskar (2nd respondent herein) for not seizing the blood stained clothes. After careful perusal of my report, the Superintendent of Police, issued a charge memo to the 2nd respondent herein Mr.K.Bhaskar, Sub Inspector of Police, Nalgonda District formerly Sub Inspector of Police, Tandur Police Station calling for his explanation for taking departmental action against him. The reply of the 2nd respondent is awaited. I respectfully submit that action was taken on the representation of the petitioner herein by issuing charge memo to the 2nd respondent herein for gross dereliction of duties. On receipt of explanation necessary action will be taken against him by the 1st respondent.” In view of the above-reproduced averments, which indicate that necessary action is taken on the representation of the petitioner, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.4881 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th APRIL, 2008 kvni