IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OFAPRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.12363 of 2007 Between: K.Papa Naidu. … Petitioner And The Additional Director General of Police, CID, A.P., Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N.Ranga Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 to R.3 & R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to quash proceedings in C.No.1561/C-5/CID/2006, dated 18-2- 2007 on the file of respondent No.1 and declare proceedings No. 4153/Complts.3/2006, dated 14-9-2006 of respondent No.5, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner is complainant in Crime No.2 of 2006 on the file of Putloor Police Station, Anantapur District. The said Crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The impleaded respondent No.4 and others are accused to the said crime, which pertains to murder of two persons, by name, Pothireddy Bhaskara Reddy and K.Narayana Swamy. After registration of the crime, the local Police started investigation and filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.14 before the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tadipatri. On 5-5-2006 the said charge sheet was returned by the learned Magistrate for attending to some remarks and thereafter it was represented on 18-5- 2006. It appears that the said Magistrate again returned the said charge sheet with certain objections. In the meantime, memo dated 14-9-2006 was issued by the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, wherein he directed immediate verification of the investigation so far carried out in the case and see that all loopholes etc., are taken care of. He further directed that charge sheet may be laid by CID as and when the investigation is completed. This was followed by proceedings dated 18-2-2007 issued by the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, wherein he, inter alia, requested the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, to direct the concerned to hand over the CD file in the Crime to the Investigating Officer of CID immediately. These two proceedings are questioned in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned orders do not contain any reason for transferring the said crime from the local Police to CID Police. He submitted that the local Police completed the entire investigation and filed charge sheet, which was returned by the jurisdictional Magistrate with remarks and that entrustment of investigation at that stage to CID is mala fide, which causes prejudice to the interests of the petitioner, who is the defacto-complainant. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India[1]. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that on the representation of respondent No.4 that justice would not be done in the hands of local Police, the enquiry was entrusted to CID. She further submitted that all the loopholes in the investigation carried out by the local Police were detected and CID examined 18 persons, who were material witnesses and left out by the local Police, and are ready to file charge sheet. She also submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioner by entrusting the investigation to CID. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 advanced similar contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and added that except pleading delay, the petitioner did not put-forth any reasons to question the entrustment of investigation to CID. He stated that no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioner if the CID investigates into the matter and files charge sheet. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he averred as under: “5. At this juncture, the accused No.1 to 6 are trying their best to weaken the case and protract the trial. By influencing the respondents through their supporters who are in power, the accused could succeed in transferring the matter to CBCID. As stated above, in fact the entire investigation is completed long back and there is no need to transfer the matter once again to CB CID at this stage. However, on 18-2-2007, the first respondent seems to have instructed the authorities concerned viz., 2nd & 3rd responjdents, vide his proceeding C.No.1561/C- 5/CID/2006, to the effect that investigation in Cr.No.2/06 pertaining to Putlur P.S. is taken over by CBCID. The entire file is handed over to CBCID for the purpose of alleged investigation. 6. I respectfully submit that the action of the Respondents in transferring the file to CBCID at this stage is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of civil liberties. In fact, myself and other witnesses have requested the authorities number of times to proceed with the matter basing on the statements recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, the accused seem to have succeeded in pressurizing the authorities and transferring the matter to CBCID, which would delay the trial and conviction of accused inasmuch as the CBCID authorities would start the investigation once again from the root level. This is only to drag the proceedings and to weaken the case. There is no reason to transfer the case to CBCID when the matter has come to the level of committal and filing of charge sheet against the accused. If this is permitted, justice will be denied to the petitioner and others who have approached the State seeking justice. I submit that the first accused is involved in nearly 17 crimes in Yellanur P.S., 5 crimes in Tadipatri P.S. and other accused also are involved in number of criminal cases. Obviously they want to drag and protract the matter and obstruct speedy trial of the case in one way of the other. Otherwise, there is no necessity for the authorities to transfer the matter to CBCID. Due to political pressures, the case is sought to be weakened and justice delayed which cannot be permitted”. From the above-reproduced averments, the only apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that by entrusting the case to CBCID, investigation will be dragged-on and eventually the criminal trial will be prolonged. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner, during hearing, submitted that handling of investigation by CBCID is likely to water down the effect of investigation done by the local Police and there is a likelihood of the prime accused being let-off, no such averment has been made by the petitioner in his affidavit. Ironically, the petitioner - who filed the Writ Petition only on the premise that delay would be caused in transferring the case to CBCID – himself contributed to the delay of more than two years by filing the present Writ Petition and convincing this Court to grant stay of investigation. No doubt, the impugned proceedings do not contain reasons and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.N.Mukherjee (1 supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is unexceptionable. But, on the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that in the absence of the petitioner pleading, much less proving much prejudice except causing delay in entrustment of investigation to CBCID, I am not inclined to go into the issue whether the impugned proceedings render themselves invalid on account of lack of reasons. In the wake of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that there is a likelihood of delay in criminal trial, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to take immediate steps to complete the investigation and file charge sheet as expeditiously as possible and not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.15401 of 2007 is dismissed and the interim stay is vacated. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 25-4-2008 MNR [1]) AIR 1990 SC 1984