IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11826 of 2009 Between: Y. Vijay Kumar S/o. Arjuna Rao R/o. Bendapudi Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The District Supeintendent of Police Kakinada East Godavari District. 3 The Station House Officer Thondangi P.S. East Godavari District. 4 Penke Kagitha Raju S/o. Chinna Veeranna R/o. Bendapudi Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SAMSON BABU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in registering FIR vide Crime No.12 of 2009, dated 09.02.2009 of Thondangi Police Station as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Ch.Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner allegedly trespassed into property in occupation of respondent No.4 and committed theft of money from the latter apart from threatening him. On the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.4, FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 379, 506 read with 34 IPC. Respondent No.3 arrested the petitioner and sent remand report, wherein it is stated that the investigation done till that time revealed that the petitioner has not committed the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and, therefore, the said offence was deleted from the case and a memo to that effect was being filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is further stated in the remand report that investigation into the case is not completed as yet. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that false case was registered against the petitioner with unusual delay after the alleged incident had taken place and registration of case is abuse of process of law and Court. I am afraid I cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel at this stage. Whether the petitioner is guilty of commission of offence or not is required to be investigated into. If the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out for registration of a criminal case. This being the fact, the police should be allowed to investigate into the case further. As noted above, in the remand report, the police have deleted Section 379 IPC from the case. This shows the objectivity with which the police have been investigating. It will be presumptuous for the petitioner to apprehend that the police may file charge sheet. If after completion of investigation, the police feel that no offences as alleged in the complaint are made out, there is a possibility of filing an appropriate report in this Court. Therefore, it is premature for this Court to interdict investigation at this stage where investigation is not completed. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.15230 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th JUNE, 2009. kvni