IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11568 of 2009 Between: Purumandla Raja Reddy S/o.P.Narayan Reddy House No.10-1-997 Bhagynagar Karimnagar, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER Karimnagar District Karimnagar 2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER Karimnagar Sub Divisional District Karimnagar 3 The Inspector of Police Karimnagar Circle, Karimnagar District 4 The Sub Inspector Of Police Karimnagar II Town Police Station,Karimnagar District 5 G.Sadan Kumar S/o not Known to Petitioner Karimnagar II Town Police Station Karimnagar District 6 Gottimukkala Rajasekhar Reddy S/o. Kista Reddy Flat No.603 Sai Chaitanya Residency Chitanapuri, Karimnagar,Karimnagar District 7 Chennamadhavuni Jaganmohan Raju S/o not Known to Petitioner Outer (V) Manakondur(M) Karimangar District 8 Alluri Narayana Rao S/o.Santhoshnagar Karimnagar,Karimnagar District 9 Anipeddi Laxman@ Laxminarayana S/o.Ramachandraiah House No.2-10-208 Jothinagar,Karimnagar Karimnagar District 10 M.Narsaiah Goud S/o Not Known to Petitioner Outer (V) Manakondur(M) Karimnagar District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.KHADER BASHA FOR MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 10: ----- The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in not conducting a fair and impartial investigation in Crime No.101 of 2009 of Karimnagar II Town Police Station, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for transfer of investigation in the said Crime to an Officer superior to respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner is the father of P.Karunakar Reddy He lodged a written complaint on 21-03-2009 against respondent Nos.6 to 10, which was registered as Crime No.101 of 2009 of Karimnagar II Town Police Station, for the offences under Sections 307 and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The gist of the said complaint is that the petitioner’s son and respondent Nos.6 to 10 were partners in chit fund business and disputes, in connection with the said business, arose. Respondent Nos.6 to 10 hatched a plan to eliminate the petitioner’s son and in pursuit of the same, they attacked his son with knife, hockey sticks and sticks on 21-03-2009 at 8.30 a.m., when he along with his son went to Dr.Rajender’s Hospital, Karimnagar, for an appointment for general check-up of his new born grand daughter. While respondent No.6 attacked his son with knife on neck, hands and stomach, his driver- respondent No.9 attacked with a hockey stick on his head and shoulder and respondent Nos.7, 8 and 10 beat on other parts of the body. The victim was seriously injured and bled profusely. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4, who is the Investigating Officer, has not been properly investigating into the above-said Crime. He pleaded that respondent No.5 colluded with the accused therein and delayed the arrest of respondent Nos.6 and 9 for almost 50 days after the attack In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that the investigation conducted by him in the above-said Crime revealed that Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above said Crime (respondents 6 and 9) committed the offence, therefore, he arrested them on 27-05-2009 and recorded their confessional statements. He further stated that basing on the said statements of the eyewitnesses, he did not arrest the other accused. He denied the allegation that in order to help the other accused in the above-said Crime, the investigation was confined only to respondent Nos.6 and 9 (A.1 and A.2). Respondent No.4 opined that in view of the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, the other accused were not arrested. As the counter-affidavit is silent on whether respondent No.4 interrogated the other accused viz., respondent Nos.7, 8 and 10, this Court directed respondent No.4 to file an affidavit and also produce the case diary. Today, the additional Counter-affidavit is filed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on behalf of respondent No.4 along with the case diary. In the said counter-affidavit, respondent No.4 stated that Accused Nos.3 to 5 i.e., respondent Nos.8, 7 and 10 respectively were interrogated on 25-03-2009, 24-03-2009 and 24-03-2009 and that their interrogation revealed that their involvement in the above-said crime was not established and therefore, they were not arrested. I have gone through the statements recorded by respondent No.4 during the investigation. The victim viz., P.Karunakar Reddy, son of the petitioner, categorically stated that respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, 10 and two others viz., Dharmendar Raju and Yugandhar Raju were partners in Krishi Chit Funds/Finance, Jyothi Nagar; that on account of disputes, he retired from the partnership in the year 2004 and respondent No.6 became the Managing Director; that they could not reconcile the accounts in spite of repeated efforts made; that he filed a case in this regard which is pending in the Department of Stamps and Registration; that as he was demanding to pay Rs.25,00,000/-, which is due to him, respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 hatched a conspiracy to kill him and they laid a watch around his house for the last three days; that on 21-03-2009, he went to Pallavi Nursing Home on his moped and after coming out of the said Nursing Home, respondent No.6, his driver, respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 came to him and obstructed him from proceeding further; that respondent Nos.6 and 9 attacked him with knives and hockey sticks; that when he tried to escape, respondent Nos.7, 8 and 10 pushed him, respondent No.9 stabbed him with knife indiscriminately and respondent No.6 beat him with hockey stick with an intention to kill him; that when he raised alarm, the public took him to Surya Nursing Home thinking that he was dead. Respondent No.4 recorded the statements of Mohammed Isaq, Son of Ibrahim, Abdul Kareem, Son of Waheed, Angirekula Rama Akhilesh, Son of Lakshminarayana, and Vollala Shankaraiah, Son of Narayana. A perusal of these statements shows that they bear absolute similarity and all of them consistently were stated to have mentioned the involvement of respondent Nos.6 and 9. Though it is not possible to record conclusive findings on the involvement of respondent Nos.7, 8 and 10 at this stage, the manner in which respondent No.4 has conducted investigation raised serious apprehension in the mind of the Court that he is evidently trying to shield respondent Nos.7, 8 and 10. Respondent No.4 appeared to have readily accepted the alibi of respondent No.8 (accused No.3) and also the statements of the eye witnesses as against the categorical statement of the victim, who was seriously injured and whose statement was recorded as a dying declaration expecting his death. In my considered view appropriate and impartial investigation may reveal the truth or otherwise of the accusations made against respondent Nos.7, 8 and 10. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to entrust further investigation to another Officer of the rank of an Inspector of Police other than respondent No.3 and ensure that further investigation is made and completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and file appropriate charge sheet/final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14899 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 27th July, 2009 lur