HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24814 of 2007 Dated: February 8, 2008 Between: Smt. T. Anitha, W/o. late T. Togaraswamy, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Akkannapeta village, Ramayapet Mandal, Medak District. … Petitioner And The Director General of Police, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent, Station House Officer, Ramayampet Police Station, Medak District, in not proceeding with the investigation in Cr.No.205/2007, pending on his file, as illegal and arbitrary and a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to entrust the investigation pertaining to the aforesaid crime, to CBCID or any other investigating agency. 2. One Mr. Yeggadi Siddiramulu, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Akkannapet village of Ramayampet Mandal, Medak District, filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Ramayampet Police Station, on 10- 10-2007 at about 11.00 p.m., stating that he was proceeding along with the husband of the petitioner on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-10-MN T/R 4845 from Nizampet village to Akkannapet village, at about 10.30 p.m., in Konapur Suddavagu limits, an unknown vehicle proceeding from Ramayampet towards Siddipet, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against their motorcycle. It is stated that, in the said accident, Togaraswamy, died on the spot, having suffered multiple injuries and the complainant suffered simple injuries. Based on such complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.205/2007 on the file of the Police Station, Ramayampet, under Sections 304(A) and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and matter is under investigation. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of the deceased Togaraswamy, who was the Secretary of S.C. cell of Telangana Rashtra Samithi, a political party, but, however due to differences with the leaders in the party, he subsequently joined in Bahujan Samaj Party, along with supporters. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the contents of the complaint filed before the Police by Sri Yeggadi Siddiramulu, the complainant, are vague and suspicious. It is alleged that her husband has not died on account of an accident, but it is a case of murder at the instance of the leaders belonging to T.R.S. party. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said aspect is brought to the notice of the third respondent, the same is not being looked into and no proper investigation is being done in Cr.No.205/2007 at the instance of Sri Harish Rao, an M.L.A. from T.R.S. party, and no final report is being filed. 5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chegunta Police Station, who is incharge of Ramayampet Police Station, has filed counter affidavit stating that on the complaint submitted by Sri Siddiramulu on 10-10-2007, a case in Cr.No.205/07 was registered for the offences under Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC. It is stated that on receipt of the complaint, information was given to the bordering police stations, i.e. Bhumpalli X Road, Dubbak, Siddipet Rural and Town for the purpose of tracing the vehicle that caused the accident. It is also stated that the complainant was examined, his written statement was recorded and he was sent to Govt. Community Health Centre, Ramayampet for treatment and the doctor who treated him opined that he received simple injuries. It is stated that inquest panchanama was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and the medical officer who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death is due to ‘Cardio-respiratory Arrest due to head injury’. With reference to further investigation, it is stated that the investigating officer deputed I.D. party men to Kamareddi and Medak to verify the entries of vehicles at check posts to detect the vehicle that caused the accident, but no useful clues are forthcoming. It is further stated that on 05-11-2007 and 18-11-2007, the deputed men visited Chegunta, Toopran, Medchal, Dubbak and Siddipet checkposts and verified the entries of vehicles, but no useful information could be obtained. It is stated that sincere and strenuous efforts are being continued to trace the vehicle that caused the accident, which resulted in the death of the petitioner’s husband. 6. The very relief sought in the writ petition is based on suspicion that particulars were not correctly mentioned in the complaint filed by Siddiramulu, who is the complainant in Cr.No.205/2007. Various allegations are also made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that proper investigation is not being done in Cr.No.205/2007. However, it is clear from the averments made in the counter affidavit that from the date of receiving the complaint, i.e. 10-10-2007, investigation is being done and efforts are on to trace out the vehicle that caused the accident, in which the husband of the petitioner has died. The investigation done so far and the opinion given by the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Togaraswamy, the late husband of the petitioner, substantiate the averments made in the complaint by Siddiramulu, the complainant, that the husband of the petitioner died in a motor vehicle accident. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Police when it is clearly stated in the counter affidavit that special I.D. party has been deputed for the purpose of tracing out the vehicle that caused the accident and strenuous efforts are on. In view of the investigation done so far, it cannot be said that Police is not investigating into Cr.No.25/2007 properly. Though the petitioner alleges that she suspects some persons belonging to a political party, which is denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of third respondent, there is no other material on record to accept the allegations of the petitioner, at this stage. Though some allegations are made against some third parties, they are not made party- respondents in the writ petition, in the absence of which there is no opportunity for such persons on whom allegations are made, to rebut the same. In view of the investigation done by the Police, on the complaint and also the medical report, it is not a case where it can be said that no proper investigation was done by the Police, so as to entrust the investigation to another investigating agency. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 9, 2008 MRR