Writ petition challenging alleged illegal reinvestigation order dismissed as the police confirmed no such order was passed.
None as the petition was disposed of based on the clarification that no reinvestigation was ordered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11812 OF 2010
ORDER:
1 On the complaint filed by the petitioner against the 10th respondent herein, who is her husband, a case in Cr.No.417 of 2008 was registered on the file of Saroornagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 354 and 506 of IPC. After completing investigation into the said crime, the police have filed a charge sheet before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar against the 10th respondent and the same was taken on file as PRC No.24 of 2009. At that stage, this Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration by way of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent – Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh in ordering for reinvestigation in Crime No.417 of 2008 the file of the Saroornagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, at the behest of the 10th respondent even without to the knowledge to the petitioner and after filing the charge sheet in the said crime and after committing the same to the Court of Sessions as illegal and arbitrary.
2 While ordering notice before admission, this Court has granted interim orders granting stay of reinvestigation in Cr.No.417 of 2008 on the file of the Saroornagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.
3 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D.
Hyderabad, the 6th respondent herein, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that during the pendency of investigation in Cr.No.417 of 2008, the 10th respondent herein, who is the husband of the petitioner herein, submitted a representation before the Additional Director General of Police, CID wherein he made certain allegations against the petitioner herein and requested to order for fresh enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner in the said crime and to do justice to him alleging that he was deceived by the petitioner. On receipt of the said representation the same was forwarded to the 8th respondent for enquiry and report. It is further stated that after conducting enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner, the 8th respondent submitted a report and basing on the said enquiry report, a decision was taken not to interfere with the investigation of local police and accordingly closed the enquiry allowing the investigation that was taken up by the local police to proceed further. In the counter affidavit it is categorically stated that reinvestigation was never ordered in Cr.No.417 of 2008 on the file of the Saroornagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.
4 In the counter affidavit filed by the 9th respondent, it is categorically stated that he has not interfered with the investigation in the aforesaid crime and the writ petitioner has made imaginary, speculative and irrelevant allegations
against him to gain sympathy in her favour.
5 When it is noticed during the course of arguments that no reinvestigation was ordered, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested the Court to dispose of the Writ Petition placing on record the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent.
6 In view of the said request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent that no reinvestigation is ordered by the first respondent in Cr.No.417 of 2008 on the file of the Saroornagar Police Station, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition placing on record the said statement. However, it is made clear inasmuch as the final report has already been filed in the aforesaid crime, the respondents may take steps in accordance with law.
7 Subject to the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
---------------------------------R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
07.03.2012 Kvsn
PETITIONER
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH
HUSBAND
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, C.I.D.
9TH RESPONDENT
R. SUBHASH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
