THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.12474 of 2008 Dated 06th July, 2011 Between: P.R.Laxmipadmavathi …Petitioner And Station House Officer, CCS/Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: --- Counsel for respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in taking action on the petitioner’s complaint, dated 17.03.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. On 24.06.2011 when the matter came up for consideration, there was no representation for the petitioner. Even today, when the case is taken up, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents and perused the record. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would show that there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and her husband, P.R.Rajesh Naidu, leading to filing of a private complaint by the petitioner against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and another person, by name, Smt.Padma, in the Court of the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On a reference made by the learned Magistrate, respondent No.1 has registered the case as FIR.No.254 of 2003 for the offences under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Charge sheet was also filed on 15.11.2003. Thereafter, the case was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and on file as C.C.No.146 of 2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though five years had elapsed, the accused were not arrested. This Court has taken a serious view of the failure of the police in arresting the accused and accordingly directed the Commissioner of Police to file a counter affidavit. In his counter affidavit, the Commissioner of Police-respondent No.2 stated that after the case was taken cognizance, non-bailable warrants were issued by the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate against A1 to A4 on 18.05.2004, that non-bailable warrant against A4 was executed on 25.09.2004 and that the warrants are pending against A1 to A3. He has enumerated the various reasons for non-execution of the warrants, which include vacation of the house bearing No.2-1-559/2, Nallakunta by A1 to A3 in the year 2003 itself and their whereabouts not being known and clues in that respect were not forthcoming. Not being satisfied with the efforts made by the police in apprehending A1 to A3, this Court directed the police to file an additional counter affidavit. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, Hyderabad filed additional counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alia averred that as the police could not trace A1 to A3, proclamation orders were served on the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Amberpet Mandal and pasted on the walls of house bearing No.2-1-559/2, Nallakunta belonging to A1 to A3. It is also stated that the proclamation order was also served on the Bhagyanagar Agency, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad in which A1 has gas connection in his name. The answering respondent has stated that all efforts will be made to execute non-bailable warrants. It is further stated that the case was split up against A1 to A3 by the jurisdictional Magistrate and A4 was discharged. Having regard to the efforts made by the police on various counts to know the whereabouts of A1 to A3 and apprehend them for the purpose of execution of the non-bailable warrants, which did not fructify till date, I do not find it appropriate to keep the writ petition pending further. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to make all-out efforts to ensure that the non-bailable warrants against A1 to A3 are executed at the earliest possible time. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.16069 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th July, 2011 VGB