IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3815 OF 2014 DATE: 10.02.2026 Between :

Md. Zubeda Bagum.

… Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not investigating the case in Cr. No.194 of 2013 of Ghanpur (W) Police Station and in not taking any steps to arrest the persons who are responsible for missing of petitioner’s daughter and grand daughter and also harassing the petitioner to withdraw the said case is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal………..”

2. Ms. K. Sirivennela, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have failed to conduct a proper and effective investigation in Crime No. 194 of 2013 on the file of Ghanpur Police Station. It is contended that despite the serious nature of the allegation relating to the missing of the petitioner’s daughter, the investigating authorities have not taken adequate steps to identify and proceed against the persons responsible. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent police authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that the said crime was duly investigated in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). Upon completion of investigation, a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC was filed on 30.06.2014 before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. It is therefore contended that the grievance of the petitioner that the investigation has not been conducted does not survive. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.

5. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police authorities have not undertaken a proper investigation in Crime No. 194 of 2013. However, from the submissions made and the material placed before this Court, it is evident that the investigation has been completed and a final report has been submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 173(2) CrPC.

6. Once a final report is filed before the Magistrate, the matter falls within the judicial domain of the Magistrate concerned. At that stage, the Magistrate is empowered to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law, including:

(i) accepting the final report;

(ii) disagreeing with the conclusions and taking cognizance under Section 190 CrPC; or (iii) directing further investigation, if warranted.

7. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Magistrate has ample powers upon receipt of a police report, including the authority to direct further investigation in appropriate cases. Further, Section 173(8) CrPC expressly preserves the power of the investigating agency to conduct further investigation even after submission of the final report, subject to the leave of the Court where required. The informant or victim is also entitled to bring to the notice of the Magistrate any deficiencies in the investigation and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.

8. In view of the admitted position that a final report has already been filed before the competent Magistrate, no further direction is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The petitioner has an efficacious and adequate alternative remedy before the Magistrate concerned to challenge the final report, seek further inve