HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16792 of 2010 Date: 08.12.2010 Between : Ms.Sonal Tukaram Madhekar. …….Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department & another. …….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16792 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not filing final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against all the accused in Crime No.45 of 2010, on the file of P.S.Miyapur, Cyberabad, as illegal and to direct for transfer of said crime from P.S.Miyapur to CBCID. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is working in a hospital, on management side, and that through Shaadi.com matrimonial services, she came in contact with one Sanjeev Nagendra Singh, who is working in United States of America, as a Software Engineer. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the said Website, the above said person has shown his status as single and that he was never married earlier and is living alone. It is the case of the petitioner that after coming into contact with the aforesaid person, though he was within the company of the petitioner for some time with a promise to marry her, he has cheated her by postponing the marriage from time to time. The petitioner has filed a private complaint before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, which was referred to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation, and the same was numbered as Crime No.45 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 420, 495 and 506 of IPC. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in the aforesaid crime, the final report is filed only against accused No.1, namely, Sanjeev Nagendra Singh, by excluding the management of Shaadi.com matrimonial services. It is submitted that as the investigation was not properly done, it is a fit case to be investigated by CBCID. This writ petition is to be dismissed for more than one reason. Though the petitioner questions the inaction on the part of Police in framing charges against Shaadi.com matrimonial services, but it is not made a party-respondent to this writ petition. Neither the Company nor the managerial staff of the said Company are made parties to the writ petition. In any event, as the final report is already filed pursuant to the reference made by the Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., if the petitioner is of the view that the investigation is not made on correct lines, it is for the petitioner to file a protest/objection petition before the learned Magistrate, but at the same time, without filing any such petition before the competent Magistrate, she cannot seek for any directions in the present writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of directions as prayed for. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved of the final report filed by the Police in Crime No.45 of 2010 on the file of P.S.Miyapur, it is open for her to file a protest/objection petition before the competent Court. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th December 2010 ajr