WP/3856/2000 of LEAFIN DEPOSITORS ASSOCIATION HYD. Vs THE DIR GENERAL OF POLICE HYDAND10 ORS on 31 December 2008

Conclusion

ORDER:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

W.P.No.3856 of 2000

The petitioner is an association of depositors in the 8[th] respondent company. It is stated thatthe 8[th] respondent has collected huge deposits from various persons and has deceived them. On acomplaint made in this regard, Crime No. 415 of 1999 was registered by Chikkadpally Police Station.The petitioner states that proper and effective investigation can take place only if the case istransferred from respondent No.3 to the C.B.C.I.D.-the 5[th] respondent. The petitioner has narrated thevarious acts and omissions on the part of the 8[th] respondent. The writ petition was admitted way backon 22.12.2000 and no interim order was passed.

On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed by the Inspector of Police, DivertingAttention Team, Central Crime Station. It is stated that the investigation into the case was taken upand initially the Managing Director of the 8[th] respondent company was arrested. It is stated thattaking advantage of the bail granted by the court of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on03.01.2000, the 9[th] respondent had escaped. Efforts made for nabbing are said to have been futilethough the bail was cancelled. It is stated that efforts are being made to apprehend all the accused.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.

The petitioner wants the case to be investigated by the 5[th] respondent. During the pendency ofthe writ petition, the crime was taken up for trial and the proceedings were initiated in the court of XIIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as C.C.No.106 of 2003. It is stated that the caseagainst A.1 (9[th] respondent) split up, since he was absconding. A.2 and A.3-respondents 10 and 11are said to have been acquitted by the court on 22.12.2006. The case in Crime No.415 of 1999 hascrossed the stage of investigation. Trial has taken place and two of the accused have been acquitted.Therefore, question of entrusting the case for investigation to 5[th] respondent does not arise. The writpetition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

31-12.2008Stp