WP/8464/2002 of M/S.INDIAN OIL CORP.LTD. Vs SECTY. S.A.P.INDU.ANDCOMMERCE DEPT.HYD.AND14 on 5 December 2002

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned Government pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that based on his writtenrepresentation, dated 05-01-200, before the 1[st] respondent-StationHouse Officer, Chodavaram police station, about the theft of thearticles worth about Rs.15,000/- from his shop, Cr.No.4 of 2000 wasregistered by the 1[st] respondent for the offence under Section 380 IPC, but the 1[st] respondent has not informed the finaloutcome of the investigation.

3. This Writ petition has been filed on 12-04-2005, and the counterhas been filed on 19-11-2005 stating that based on the representationof the petitioner the said case was investigated and the saidrepresentation was referred as ‘false’. It is stated that the final reportwas also filed before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,Chodavaram on 29-02-2000 but the same was filed without servingany notice for which the 1[st] respondent seeks to oblige him.

4. I am of the opinion that the police officials are not performingtheir statutory duties regarding the steps to be taken on the writtenrepresentations about the commission of cognizable offences. In theinstant case, admittedly, the report has been filed without issuing anynotice to the complainant so as to enable him to take appropriate legal steps either to contest the said final report or to file another privatecomplaint.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a liberty to thepetitioner either to contest the said report or to file a private complaintbefore the concerned Magistrate for taking appropriate legal actionagainst the concerned. No order as to costs.

19[th] February, 2007.Tsy

__________________

V.ESWARAIAH,J