Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the 3rd respondent Inspector of Police, Central Zone Team, Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad City in issuing the notice dated 24.08.2013 directing the petitioner to appear before him and then, confining him to the Police Station for a number of hours, as bad in law. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has secured instructions, in writing, from the Inspector of Police, Central Zone Team, Central Crime Station, Detective Department, and based thereon, he would submit that one Sri K. Bhavanarayana had lodged a complaint on 09.04.2012 with the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad making a very serious allegation that the petitioner herein has duped the said Sri Bhavanarayana to a tune of Rs. 2 crores. The said complaint has been transmitted to the Central Crime Station for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, Crime No. 84 of 2012 under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner and investigation has been taken up. It appears, several of the Investigating Officers, who functioned earlier as such, have been transferred and the present Investigating Officer has assumed charge only in the month of February 2013. Hence, he has issued the impugned notice on 24.08.2013 in accordance with Section 41-A read with Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that as part of investigation only, the petitioner has been issued the impugned notice. He would also contend that as per the orders passed by this Court on 06.06.2012 in Criminal Petition No. 4598 of 2012, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Agency on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m. for three months or until filing of a charge sheet, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the petitioner cannot decline to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. 3. Per contra, Sri Venkat Rao Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while passing orders on 06.06.2012 in Criminal Petition No. 4598 of 2012, this Court made it clear that the petitioner should appear at the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m. for three months or until filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. The three months’ period is over nearly one year back, but still, the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed and made to appear before the Investigating Officers and in spite of his appearing, he is made to unnecessarily wait at the Police Station for a number of hours, so that he will not be able to attend to any other activity of his own on the said date. 4. Investigation is to be carried out by the police as a part of the prosecution to be launched against the offenders of law. It has got to be carried out on scientific and other approved lines. The Investigating Officer can expect cooperation from all those with whom he would like to interact, as he has a reason to believe that necessary and crucial information can be gathered there from, but that does not mean that the investigation should lead itself into a physical and mental endurance test. If the Investigating Officer requires the petitioner to appear before him at a particular time, on a particular day, he must try to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two or three hours time. He cannot summon the petitioner to appear before him at 10.00 in the morning and start interacting with him at 10.00 p.m., thus making him wait at the police station for a number of hours, so that he will get fed up and frustrated in the process. That is not the manner in which the investigation can be carried out. If there is a plan of action drawn by the Investigating Officer, he must concentrate on that work, keeping in mind that the person called to appear before him may also have some other useful activity to be taken care of by him and hence, no such person shall be made to wait unnecessarily for a number of hours. It would have been a different matter, if, during the course of investigation, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer is spanning over a number of hours, but without even attending to the investigation work, people summoned by the police cannot be made to wait for a number of hours. It would have been a different matter, if, during the course of investigation, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer is spanning over a number of hours, but without even attending to the investigation work, people summoned by the police cannot be made to wait for a number of hours. Even if the recording of the statement is taking enormous time, say beyond 4-6 hours, if the person making the statement makes a request for adjourning the session, by about 2 or 3 hours, to enable him to recuperate from fatigue, such a request has to be conceded. After all, one is entitled to an appropriate rest to get recharged. 5. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to finalize the investigation as expeditiously as possible and if at all he needs to interact with the petitioner, he should do so within the next two or three hours from the time specified by him. If the petitioner, in spite of appearing before the 3rd respondent, has not been interacted with, all due to preoccupation of the Investigating Officer, real or pretentious, it shall be open to him to leave the premises of the Central Crime Station, after expiry of the three-hour time, without any intimation to the 3rd respondent and the petitioner cannot be faulted on that ground. 6. I hope and trust that the 3rd respondent will not drag on the investigation for a number of years, as it is 1 ½ years time has elapsed from the date the complaint has been received by the Commissioner of Police on 09.04.2012. The police machinery cannot go on investigating into a crime for such a long period, if it is truly interested in bringing out the truth of the matter. 7. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 8. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.