THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9202 OF 2010 Dated 31st May, 2010 Between: E.P.Ranga Reddy …Petitioner And The Sub-Inspector of Police, CCS Police station, Police Control Room, Hyderabad and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.S.Lakshminarayana Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3: --- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1, in conducting investigation in Crime No.139 of 2009, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No.1. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to hear respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner gave a report against respondent Nos.2 and 3 before respondent No.1 on 06-07-2009, which was registered as Crime No.139 of 2009 for offences under Sections 403 and 439 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Criminal Petition No.4600 of 2009 before this Court seeking quashing of the said Crime and obtained interim stay. The said Criminal Petition was disposed of, after the petitioner filed an application to vacate the interim stay, with the direction to the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation and take further action except arresting respondent Nos.2 and 3. A further direction was given by this Court to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to appear before the Investigating Officer for ten days from 21-11-2009 to 30-11-2009 for completion of investigation. The present Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that despite disposal of the said Criminal Petition, respondent No.1 has not completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submitted that the investigation is still pending and that so far respondent No.1 has examined the petitioner and one Rama Subba Reddy as witnesses. She submitted that some more time is required for completing investigation. In my opinion, there is no justification for respondent No.1 to keep the investigation pending for unduly long time because while disposing of the above-mentioned Criminal Petition this Court directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to be available for investigation to facilitate early completion of investigation by respondent No.1. More than seven months had elapsed from the disposal of the above-mentioned Criminal Petition by this Court and not much headway appears to have been made by respondent No.1 in completing the investigation. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed by directing respondent No.1 to complete the investigation and file appropriate final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate after notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 31st May, 2010 lur