THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.20182 of 2019

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“...to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to withdraw the case i.e., FIR.No.82 of 2006 dated 12.04.2016 pending on the file of Station House Officer, Yadagirigutta i.e., Respondent No.7 herein and entrust the same to an independent agency like CBCID under the control and jurisdiction of Respondent No.3 for causing reinvestigation by adding the Respondents 9 to 12 in the above crime as accused in a transparent and unbiased manner by duly declaring the action of the Respondent No.7 in conducting the biased and partial investigation in the above crime by not adding the Respondents 9 to 12 as accused in the above crime even though the petitioner has specifically made allegations against them as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C., and also contrary to the well settled principles of law...”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, & 4 to 7, learned Special Public Prosecutor/Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though the 7^th respondent had registered a case vide Crime No.82/2016, dt.12.04.2016, the said authority did not conduct investigation there into properly, particularly not bringing to book the real accused in the aforesaid crime i.e., the unofficial respondents herein and proceeding only against 8th respondent herein, even though the other unofficial respondents herein are also involved in commission of the said crime.

4. Petitioner further contends that though the 7^th respondent claims to have filed a charge sheet after conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime which is said to have been taken on record and numbered as SC.No.145/2017, the same shows the routine and casual manner in which the 7th respondent has filed the chargesheet without causing proper investigation into the said crime and thus, the aforesaid crime should be withdrawn from the 7^th respondent and entrusted to an independent agency like CBCID under the control and jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent for causing reinvestigation by adding unofficial respondent Nos.9 to 12 in the above crime as accused and to conduct reinvestigation in a transparent and unbiased manner.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 12.04.2016 his father namely Kamala Manohar Rao @ Kamalakar Rao, went to Kambal’s Well on his white Activa bearing No.TS 05 3013 to bring dung and as he failed to return home, he made a call on his father’s mobile number, but there was no response; and that about 1015 hrs, he once-again made another call to his father’s mobile number, but the same was switched off.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that as his father did not return home and his mobile was switched off, he along with his friends enquired about the disappearance of his father and during the course of enquiry, one Manimeni Komraiah and Kanakaraju stated that they saw their father going towards Gacchukunta side, upon which the petitioner proceeded towards Gacchukunta side and while searching, found his father dead in a brook with bleeding injuries on back of his head and they found blood stains; and that his father’s spectacles, chappals and Lenovo phone were found at the dead body.

7. Petitioner further contends that on seeing his father at the said location, he had realized that someone called his father to Gacchukunta and murdered him and immediately lodged a complaint with the 7^th respondent against respondent Nos.8 to 12; and that the 7^th respondent instead of registering the case against the unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 12 herein, had registered the case only against the 8^th respondent and on being questioned as to why the 7^th respondent did not include respondent Nos.9 to 12