IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9261 of 2008 Between: V.Ranjith Charan Kumar, S/o. V.Lakshmi Narayana R/o. Flat No. G-14, Plot No. 47, Badam Saroornagar Apartment Huda Complex, Saroornagar ( P.O) Hyderabad-500 035. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The state of A.P., Home Department, Rep. by its Prl. Secreatary, Secreatariat, hyd. 2 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, hyd. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyd. 4 The Additional Commissioner of Police, ( Crimes ), City Crime station, Hyd. 5 The inspector of Police, West Zone Team, Detective Dept., City Crime Station, Hyd. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. K.CHIDAMBARAM FOR MR.P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not properly investigating the complaint of the petitioner and in filing defective charge sheet, dated 30.04.1998 and supplementary charge sheet, dated 18.12.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and his father are the original shareholders of M/s.Nagarjuna Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited. A private complaint filed by the petitioner in 1997 alleging transfer of their shares with forged signatures was taken on file by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, and the same was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, for investigation. As the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation carried on by one Ch.Y.Srinivasa Kumar, the Investigating Officer, he was making repeated efforts for getting re- investigation done, by approaching the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Station, West Zone and also Additional Commissioner of Police, Crimes & SIT. After charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet were filed in the case, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri S.S.P.Yadav, Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, it is inter alia stated that on going through the investigation done by the previous Investigating Officer, it was found that there was a clear forgery of signatures of the petitioner and his father on transfer forms; that the previous Investigating Officer did not send the transfer forms to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to prove the forgery and without getting scientific report, he had filed the charge sheet for the offence of forgery. It is further stated that further investigation disclosed that accused No.3, Sri Bhagwan Das Marda, attested as witness on the forged share certificate transfer forms and the confessional statement of A.2 revealed that one D.Srinivas, a relative of A.1, has actually forged the signatures of the petitioner and his father and that the specimen writings of the suspect Srinivas were taken by the Investigating Officer for comparison with the forged signatures on the transfer forms. It is also stated that when FSL authorities returned the said signatures with a request to the Investigating Officer to send the extensive admitted writings of the suspect Srinivas relating to the year 1992, the Investigating Officer again forwarded the same to FSL requesting them to give opinion on the available material as he could not secure admitted writings after a period of 12 years and that after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. In paragraph 9, the answering respondent has stated as under: “It is respectfully submitted that as per the records it is further revealed that the S.I. of Police, Panjagutta PS Sri Ch.Y.Srinivasa Kumar, who has registered a case under Sections 420, 468 r/w 120(B) IPC on the report of complainant forwarded by the Hon’ble XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate under 156(3) Cr.P.C. has not properly investigated the case and hurriedly filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 u/Ss.420, 468 r/w 120(B) IPC on 3-4-2000 without any documentary evidence. Though he corresponded with the NFCL Company in March 2000 for the required documents for the purpose of investigation, he failed to send the documents to the FSL for comparison of handwritings as the complaint was mainly against the forgery of the transfer forms of share certificates. Even though Sri Ch.Y.Srinivasa Kumar was not the SI of Police Panjagutta at the time of filing charge sheet on 3-4-2000, he filed the charge sheet showing the date of charge sheet as 30-4-1998. If he had done investigation properly he would have come to know as to who attested the share certificate transfer forms as witnesses and who has actually forged signatures of the complainant and his father on the transfer forms and also the liability of the NFCL company if any, in this regard. Later, in the investigation done by the Inspector, CCS Sri Laxmanna, the accused A3 Bhagawan Dass Mardha who attested in the transfer forms as witness and the suspect Srinivas who was alleged to have actually forged the signatures of complainant and his father as per the confession statement of A2, have come to surface.” At the hearing, Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out and in my view, rightly that having seriously suspected the role of Sri D.Srinivas, the police have not arrayed him as an accused, at least when they filed supplementary charge sheet. He also pointed out that it is not the case of the police that the said D.Srinivas is an illiterate and that relevant school and college records bearing his hand-writing must be available and if any efforts were made by the police in this direction, it would not have been difficult for them to procure the hand-writings of Srinivas pertaining to the year 1992. From the above-reproduced averments contained in the counter- affidavit, it is clear that Sri Bhagwan Das Marda was shown as accused No.3 after further investigation. But, the Director General of Police failed to give any justification whatsoever to exclude Sri D.Srinivas, who is seriously suspected of indulging in forgery, from being shown as accused in the case along with Sri Bhagwan Das Marda, more so, in the face of the confessional statement made by A.2. Even assuming that the police failed to secure the information from FSL on the alleged forgery, one can see no justification to completely exclude the said D.Srinivas from being shown as an accused, because it is quite probable that during trial, required evidence may be let in to establish the guilt of the said D.Srinivas. Having regard to the above facts, I am of the clear opinion that the Investigating Officer has not taken proper steps to get the opinion of FSL on the alleged forgery indulged in by Sri D.Srinivas and has unjustly excluded him from being arrayed as an accused in the criminal case. Therefore, in the light of the observations made above, the respondents are directed to take corrective measures in this regard, if necessary by filing another supplementary charge sheet, within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. The petitioner is also given liberty to file appropriate applications before the jurisdictional Magistrate. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.12239 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st JUNE, 2009. kvni