1 APHC010653192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 33932/2025 Between: Sheriff Wasim Ahmed and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. HARSHA VARDHANA RAO C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus against the Respondent No.2 as he failed in his legitimate duty to reregister the case in Cr.No.4/2020 of 1 Town police Station as during investigation more serious crime of house theft which is grave in nature has been unearthed and Finger Print Experts Opinion clearly shows that the Finger prints on the fake registered documents are not the same when compared with that of the petitioners and their mother and the same is reported to Station House Officer 1 Town PS Vijayawada by the Petitioners as legal 2 heirs when their mother died and the SHO of 1 Town PS (R-2) refused to take their report and reregister Express FIR and which act of denial is unconstitutional unbecoming of a Station House Officer in a Police Station and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the constitution of India and against the orders of new APPM (i as per Orders No 52-7 of new APPM part-1 volume-1 Pages Nos.107-108) and the Finger print Experts opinion very clearly establishes the offence of creating forged fake documents by impersonation for trading purpose and hence pass such other order(s)….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that in the course of further investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained certified copies of Document Nos.3137/2010 and 4465/2009 from the Sub-Registrar Office, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada, under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1970 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’). However, the Sub-Registrar, Gandhi Nagar, did not produce the Thumb Impression Register and informed that the Thumb Impression Registers cannot be handed over to the police. It was further stated that police officers may be permitted to peruse the register in the presence of the Sub- Registrar in the office itself. If the Thumb Impression Register is required to be produced before any Court, it can be done only upon receipt of summons from the Court, as per Memo No.G1/9158/91, dated 24.04.1991, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh. 4. It is further submitted that in this case, the Investigating Officer filed a petition seeking collection of signatures and fingerprints of the witnesses in 3 open Court for comparison with the signatures and fingerprints available on the connected documents, to establish the guilt of the accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. For this purpose, the Thumb Impression Register of the Sub-Registrar Office, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada, where fingerprints were obtained at the time of registration of Document Nos. 3137/2010 and 4465/2009, was required. Subsequently, the Court addressed a letter of advice to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and the Investigating Officer obtained the FSL report on 15.11.2025. 5. On perusal of the above written instructions, it is evident that the Investigating Officer has collected the RFSL report. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent received the representation submitted by the petitioner through registered post on 25.11.2025. 6. The case is still under investigation to ascertain whether the accused has committed any offence, based on the RFSL report. 7. Be that as it may, the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2025 is also required to be examined and considered by the Investigating Officer for effectively concluding the investigation and filing appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Court. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer is directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, duly considering the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2025. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 4 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 03.02.2026 KMS 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33932 of 2025 Date: 03.02.2026 KMS 160