THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21650 of 2009 Dated 01st July, 2010 Between: Shaik Nooruddin. …Petitioner And The Government of A.P. and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Syed Khader Mastan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent No.4 and 6 to 8: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner who lost his daughter filed this writ petition, feeling aggrieved by the alleged unfair investigation carried on by respondent No.4 into the offence allegedly committed by respondent No.8, for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.7 to conduct further investigation in J.C.C.No.39 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate-cum-Juvenile Court, Guntur. The petitioner’s elder daughter – Shaik Heena Kauser was studying 8th class in Zilla Parishad High School, Kolakaluru. On 27.01.2009, the petitioner left his house to his work place and on his return he was allegedly informed by his daughter that respondent No.8 forcibly kidnapped and took her in his auto to Takkellapadu fields and committed rape on her. On the same day, the petitioner along with his victim daughter went to respondent No.6 Police Station and got a report given by his daughter. The petitioner alleged that despite the said report, no case was registered and that though respondent No.8 was summoned to the Police Station, he was neither arrested nor subjected to medical examination. The petitioner made allegations against respondent No.6 that he has colluded with respondent No.8 and his parents. That unable to bear the humiliation and the threats given by respondent No.8, on 29.01.2009 the petitioner’s daughter committed suicide by immolating herself. She succumbed to burns thirty-seven days after she had set fire to herself. It is alleged that Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur, recorded her dying declaration in which she explained the circumstances leading to her attempt to commit suicide by burning herself. As the incident has sparked a furore, respondent No.3 transferred investigation to respondent No.4, by memo dated 29.01.2009. The petitioner alleged collusion by respondent No.4 as well and accused him of facilitating respondent No.6 to tamper with and fabricate the general diary entries by ante dating them to protect the latter. The petitioner pointed out certain serious lapses in investigation, which need not be referred in detail. After completion of investigation, respondent No.4 has filed charge sheet. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a serious objection to the charge sheet on the ground that the very scene of offence which was spoken to by the deceased in her dying declaration was changed in the charge sheet in order to help respondent No.8 and ensure his acquittal. The tragedy that has befallen the petitioner is indeed very unfortunate. If either of the respondents i.e., respondent Nos.4 and 6 have facilitated the parents of respondent No.8 to ensure latter’s acquittal, such a conduct on the part of the Police is unpardonable. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations made by the petitioner, I find it appropriate that the learned jurisdictional Magistrate examines this issue with all seriousness it deserves and after hearing the parties shall take a decision whether the serious allegations made by the petitioner have substance of truth. If the record reveals that the investigation was not carried on on proper lines, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate order for a further investigation. The petitioner is permitted to make an appropriate application for this purpose before the jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of four weeks. On such application being filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider and take a decision thereon before proceeding with the trial of the case. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28123 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st July, 2010 GHN