IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4080 of 2009 Between: K.Krishna Kishore, S/o. Solapuri R/o.D.No.23-227, Yenamala Kuduru Vijayawada,Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Station House Officer, Penamaluru P.S. Vijayawada City, Krishna Dsitrict. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANAMUS, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not investigating into Cr.No.12/2008 registered by the 2nd respondent on 18-1-2008,inspite of sending the Notice dated 17-1-2008 to the 2nd respondent and representation dated 20-12-2008 to the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No.1 herein to entrust the investigation of Cr.No.12/2008 to any other investigation officer to conduct a thorough investigation into the said crime and to submit the report before the concerned Magistrate. Counsel for the Petitioner: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.4080 of 2009 Order: The petitioner, who is practicing as an Advocate, filed this writ petition as party-in-person seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not investigating into Crime No.12 of 2008 registered by the second respondent on 18.01.2008, in spite of a legal notice, dated 17.01.2008, got issued to the second respondent and a representation, dated 21.12.2008, made to the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary. However, after filing the writ petition, he engaged a counsel to defend his case. The petitioner claims to be one of the co-owners of premises bearing D.No.23-227 situated at Yenamalakuduru, Penamaluru mandal, Vijayawada. He states that during the month of November, 2007 he had been to Hyderabad on his profession work and when returned on 26.11.2007, he found that the main gate of the premises kept open and found that the material in the premises was damaged. On enquiry, he came to know that the Executive Officer of Yanamalakudur Gram Panchayat, along with her staff, has trespassed into the premises and resorted to damage of the material inside the premises. Immediately thereafter, he is stated to have issued a notice on 28.11.2007 to the Executive Officer, Yanamalakuduru questioning her illegal activities, in vain. He therefore lodged a complaint before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the second respondent registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2008 way back on 18.01.2008, so far neither he apprehended the accused nor proceeded with the investigation, in spite of a representation being made to the first respondent on 20.12.2008. Hence, the present writ petition. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner and inter alia stating that on a complaint lodged by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.12 of 2008 was registered and investigation was also completed. It is however stated that final report could not be filed before the Court concerned, due to non-service of notice on the petitioner informing the result of the case, as the house of the petitioner was locked. It is also stated that a notice was sent to the petitioner by RPAD on 07.03.2009, and after receipt of the same, final report would be filed before the Court concerned. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit that on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.12 of 2008 was registered, that investigation is completed and that final report would be filed before the Court concerned in due course, no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 31.03.2009 VGB