(1.) The petitioner is Accused No.4 in P.R.C. No.1/98 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandalur, Cuddapah District. The said P.R.C. arose out of Crime No.25/97 of P.S. Pullampet, under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the fifth respondent herein, in filing a memo before the Court of JFCM, Nandalur, requesting to proceed with the case based on the charge-sheet filed by P.S. Pullampet, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to the seventh respondent to exonerate the petitioner from Crime No.25/97 based on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Nellore, the fourth respondent herein.
(2.) The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. On 20-6-1997, one Poli Peddi Reddy and his unmarried daughter Poli Jyothi were murdered on the metal road running from Puttanavari Palli to Konayyagari Palli. The F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner with P.S. Pullampet, which was registered as Crime No.25/97, under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. Subsequently, the petitioner was also added as Accused No.4 and he was allegedly arrested by local police. The petitioner, therefore, filed writ petition for Habeas Corpus, being W.P.NO.16063 of 1997. Be that as it is, the petitioner also made a representation to the Hon'ble Home Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh, requesting to entrust the investigation to the Crime Branch, C.I.D. Accordingly, by Memo C.No.l840/C4/CID/ 97 dated 13-11-1997, the seventh respondent directed the entrustment of the case to the CBCID. One A.V. Subba Rao, DSP, CID, Nellore, completed investigation and submitted a report, recommending further enquiry. In the meanwhile, curiously, the Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajampet, filed a charge-sheet on 22-1-1998 on the file of the Court of the JFCM, Nandalur. Almost simultaneously, on 23-1-1998, the investigating officer of CBCID filed a report, inter alia, exonerating the petitioner from indictment Presumably for this reason and also after conducting investigation on his own, one R.P. Dube, the third respondent herein, filed a memo before the Criminal Court to stall proceedings in P.R.C.No.1/98 in view of further investigation by CBCID. Subsequently, during 1999, one Z. Prabhakar, DSP, CID, Kurnool and during 2000, one C.S. Prasada Rao, DSP, CID, Kurnool, conducted further investigation. They, in their reports, observed that the involvement of the petitioner in the double murder case has to be ruled out, as there is no evidence against him. Be that as it is, the seventh respondent having come to know that the local police filed charge-sheet, issued a radio message on 27-7-2000, directing the withdrawal of the charge-sheet from the Court and conducting investigation de novo. At this stage, the opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutor was sought, who opined that the charge-sheet filed by the local police cannot be withdrawn unless such order is obtained from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. When this was brought to the notice of the seventh respondent, he issued instructions on 1-5-2001, directing the DSP, Cuddapah (CBCID), to file a memo requesting the Criminal Court to proceed with P.R.C. No. 1/98. Accordingly, the fifth respondent filed a memo on 14-5-2001 on the file of the JFCM, Nandalur, requesting the Court to proceed with the trial of the case on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the local police.
(3.) A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent. The factual background of the case is not seriously disputed. But, however, it is stated that in view of the legal opinion given by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the seventh respondent directed the fifth respondent to file the impugned memo. The respondents have also produced the entire case file in Crime No.25/97 containing the reports submitted by five investigating officers of the rank of DSP, CBCID, during the history of investigation in Crime No.25/97.