THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :9467 of 2010 Date: 10.6.2010 Between: Shaik Ameerunnisa ..... PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Not present Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: A.G.P. for Home The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :9467 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in filing charge sheet in FIR No. 25 of 2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent no.2 to file the charge sheet. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, Arundalpet (Law and Order) Police Station, Guntur filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2. In the counter affidavit, no reasons are assigned for failure of respondent No.2 to file counter affidavit. The deponent of the counter affidavit not being a party to the writ petition, he is incompetent to speak for respondent No.2. The non-filing of counter affidavit by respondent No.2 constitutes dereliction of his duty. The conduct of respondent No.2 in not filing his own counter affidavit indicates his lack of respect to the legal process and proceedings before a constitutional Court. This order shall be sent to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh and the Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur, Respondent No.1, for initiating appropriate action against respondent No.2. De hors the counter affidavit which this Court declines to consider for the above stated reason, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that the investigation of the case is completed and final report was filed on 25.5.2010 before the Jurisdictional Magistrate referring the case as purely civil in nature. The learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished a copy of notice sent to the complainant, which reveals that the notice was purportedly served on the petitioner on 24.5.2010. When the investigation officer is stated to have completed enquiry and filed a final report in February, 2008, no reason is discernable as to the inordinate delay in issuing notice to the complainant. Eventually, after filing of the writ petition in April, 2010, respondent No.2 has woken up and to save his skin, he caused service of notice to the petitioner. This act of respondent No.2 also reflects on his conduct. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh and the Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur, Respondent No.1 shall consider this conduct of respondent No.2 as well in initiating appropriate proceedings against him. Inasmuch as the final report is stated to have been submitted, no relief in this writ petition can be granted. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a protest petition. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 10th June, 2010 Note: The registry shall send copies of this order to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh and Superintendent of Police, Guntur District Guntur. (BO) pnb