JUDGMENT : U Durga Prasad Rao, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 5 in not registering the complaint dated 11.05.2017 of the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to register the complaint. 2. The petitioner is the wife of late Venkateswara Rao. Her case is that her husband Venkateswara Rao was working as Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) in Dr. Narla Tata Rao Thermal Power Station (VTPS), Vijayawada. On 11.11.2008 at 10.00 A.M. while he was in duty, he died in the accident occurred in the conveyor belt. The petitioner's grievance is that some of the officials and workers who were enemically disposed towards her husband killed him and created the incident as accident. Her version is that 30 minutes prior to the incident, the workers and officials quarrelled with her husband. The officials called her husband to the work without issuing LC letter and asked him to climb into the conveyor belt to repair the same and while he was still working on the conveyor belt, they started the conveyor belt and thereby her husband fell down, suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Though two other co-workers who received injuries and some other persons witnessed the incident, all of them did not speak the truth for fear of the officials. Her allegation is that all the 15 witnesses, 4 societies, higher officials, staff, Vigilance officers, Security officers, Guards, Coal plant SE, staff and other persons, higher officers colluded with each other, they removed the body of her husband and shifted to VTPS Board Hospital and kept there till evening and thereafter lodged a police complaint with fabricated facts. The VTPS officials have not allowed the press and police staff inside the VTPS premises. As an eyewash, the officials have transferred the concerned officials to another plant. Her case is that due to the negligence of the officials the petitioner lost her husband. After 32 hours of the accident and on completion of all the process, the officials handed over the dead body for cremation to the petitioner and her relations. The petitioner came to know that the medical officials have removed some parts from her husband's body, but due to the bereavement she could not think of lodging any complaint. After 32 hours of the accident and on completion of all the process, the officials handed over the dead body for cremation to the petitioner and her relations. The petitioner came to know that the medical officials have removed some parts from her husband's body, but due to the bereavement she could not think of lodging any complaint. (a) It is her further case that against the incident, she made several complaints to police on 14.11.2008, 12.02.2009, 02.08.2009, 10.09.2009, 29.03.2010, 04.06.2010, 24.10.2011, 04.06.2012, 16.12.2013, 25.12.2013, 19.03.2014, 25.04.2014, 26.02.2015, 28.12.2015, 12.05.2016 and finally on 11.05.2017 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, but the police officials have not received her complaint on the ground that they had already received the complaint from Dr. NTTPS, Ibrahimpatnam and they were conducting enquiry. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Opposing the writ petition, learned Government Pleader for Home would argue that the petitioner's husband P.Venkateswara Rao worked as Junior Plant Attendant in Dr. NTTPS, Ibrahimpatnam and on 11.11.2008 while himself and two others were attending repair works on the conveyor belt-II, the conveyor belt suddenly moved accidentally and thereby the petitioner's husband and two others fell down and while the remaining two persons suffered minor injuries, P.Venkateswara Rao suffered grievous injuries and died when he was shifted to the hospital. In respect of the said incident, on the statement given by one of the injured, the police of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.358/2008 under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC and after investigation laid charge sheet against A1 & A2, who are the Assistant Additional Engineer and Additional Assistant Engineer of MCC-II, C.H.P-II respectively of VTPS. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the offence and registered the same as C.C.No.73/2011 and conducted trial and after completion of trial acquitted the accused as per the judgment dated 01.12.2014. Producing the copy of judgment learned Government Pleader would submit that the police indeed have registered the crime and investigated the same and filed charge sheet and the case was also ended in acquittal and therefore, the petitioner who filed this writ petition about 9 years after the incident and 3 years after the judgment in C.C.No.73/2011, cannot maintain the writ petition at this belated stage. He would further argue that if she was aggrieved by the judgment in C.C.No.73/2011, she should have filed Criminal Appeal and prosecuted the matter. However, without following the said procedure she cannot maintain the writ petition. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The point for consideration is that whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow? 5. Point: The admitted facts in this case are that the petitioner's husband P.Venkateswara Rao worked as Junior Plant Attendant in Dr. NTTPS, Ibrahimpatnam. On 11.11.2008, P.Venkateswara Rao and two others attended the repairing work of conveyor belt-II in the plant and while they were still fixing bolts, suddenly the conveyor belt started running and on seeing the same the two other workers jumped towards left side of the conveyor belt and sustained minor injuries, whereas the petitioner who was sitting at the centre by stretching his legs into the chute fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died instantaneously. 6. On the strength of the statement of M.Srinivas Rao, one of the injured, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.358/2008 for the offence under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC and filed charge sheet against A1 & A2, who are the Assistant Additional Engineer and Additional Assistant Engineer of MCC-II, C.H.P-II respectively of VTPS. Learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada took cognizance of the offence and registered it as C.C.No.73/2011 and conducted trial and acquitted the accused in his judgment dated 01.12.2014. 7. A perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.73/2011, a copy of which is made available by the learned Government Pleader, would show that on the fateful day i.e., on 11.11.2008, after routine inspection, A1 being Mechanical Maintenance Assistant Engineer informed A2, who is working as Additional Assistant Engineer, that he need permission to work on conveyor II and stacker-II for replacing damaged idlers one on conveyor-II and another on boom. A2 in turn entrusted the said work to PW7-P.Srinivasa Rao, Plant Attendant to clear the coal on conveyor-II around 9.30 A.M. and stopped it around 9.35 A.M. The permission to work was signed around 9.45 A.M. without filling the columns such as date and time. Then A1 entrusted the deceased and two other JPAs i.e., PWs 1 & 2 to attend roller replacement work on conveyor-II and stacker-II. At the time of accident, A1 was at the head end of conveyor-II. Then A1 entrusted the deceased and two other JPAs i.e., PWs 1 & 2 to attend roller replacement work on conveyor-II and stacker-II. At the time of accident, A1 was at the head end of conveyor-II. In the meanwhile, mechanical staff completed the work of roller replacement and moved towards conveyor-II tail end. While the deceased and PWs 1 & 2 were passing through the tail end and chute of conveyor-II observed that skirt rubber bolts were in worn out condition and one rubber fell from the plate. Thinking that the permission was still in force to work on conveyor-II, all the three boarded the conveyor-II and started fixing the bolts. The deceased was sitting at the centre, stretching his legs into chute and PWs 1 & 2 sitting on either side of the deceased with folded legs. At that time, all of a sudden, conveyor-II started running and on observing the same, PWs 1 & 2 jumped towards left side of the conveyor but the deceased could not because he was sitting on the centre, he moved towards chute and fell on the ground, sustained severe injuries and died instantaneously even before the Doctor at NTTPS dispensary attended him. On hearing the cries, LW9 came out of the cabin and in the meanwhile the conveyor was stopped by nearby workers and shifted the injured to the hospital. In those circumstances, alleging that A1 & A2 did not obtain written clearance certificate after completion of the work and thereby they were negligent in the duty, charge sheet was filed against them. (a) Further perusal of the judgment would show, of the two prime witnesses i.e., PWS 1 & 2, PW2 did not support the prosecution case. He stated that he did not know how the accident had occurred and he did not give report and police did not examine him. Most importantly he denied the suggestion of the Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused being the in-charge of the conveyor-II were negligent, due to which the accident took place. The trial Court held that the evidence of PW2 was not useful to the prosecution. Then as far as PW1 is concerned, he stated that at the time of incident A2 was in the coal plant. He further stated that he cannot say why and how the conveyor started running at the time of accident. The trial Court held that the evidence of PW2 was not useful to the prosecution. Then as far as PW1 is concerned, he stated that at the time of incident A2 was in the coal plant. He further stated that he cannot say why and how the conveyor started running at the time of accident. He admitted that the maintenance people had nothing to do with the running of the belt. He further stated that at the time of accident, A1 was checking the conveyor along with PW3 and he does not know how the accident in question took place and who was responsible for the accident. In the cross-examination by the counsel for A2, he stated that A2 was not in-charge of the coal plant at the time of accident and he did not know as to who was responsible for the accident and he did not know the reason as to how the conveyor started running suddenly. The trial Court on assessing his evidence, has observed that PW1 has not given any reason as to how the conveyor belt started running when they were repairing the same and that he did not speak as to who was responsible for the running of the conveyor. It further observed that PW1 did not attribute the running of conveyor-II to either of the accused. Then PW3, another eye witness, has stated that he did not know who was in-charge of the conveyor-II as on the date of accident. He further stated that he did not know how the conveyor started running resulting in the accident. PW7 who is a supporting witness stated that he heard hue and cry from conveyor-II of the plant and as the machine on which he was working was on, he could not rush there, but later came to know that Venkateswara Rao met with accident. (b) Thus, having regard to the nature of the above prime witnesses, the trial Court in Paragraph No.24 of its judgment observed that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 337 & 304A IPC and accordingly, acquitted them. Thus, the facts would show, in the instant case, indeed the police have registered a case which was later ended in acquittal. 8. Thus, the facts would show, in the instant case, indeed the police have registered a case which was later ended in acquittal. 8. Now, coming to the petitioner's case, according to her, she lodged a report with the police of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station on several times i.e., on 14.11.2008, 12.02.2009, 02.08.2009, 10.09.2009, 29.03.2010, 04.06.2010, 24.10.2011, 04.06.2012, 16.12.2013, 25.12.2013, 19.03.2014, 25.04.2014, 26.02.2015, 28.12.2015, 12.05.2016 and finally on 11.05.2017, but they have not registered her complaint on the ground that on the complaint of PW2, they already registered the case and investigating the matter. 9. Then I gave my anxious consideration to the complaint allegations as a copy of the complaint tried to be given by the petitioner to the police is filed along with the material papers. Her allegation is that the officers and other staff were responsible for the death of her husband and on that day half an hour before the incident, the officers and other workers had a quarrel with her husband. It should be noted that the petitioner mentioned as if so many people were responsible for the death of her husband. Here in this case, the facts would show that the police, basing on the statement of one of the injured (PW2), have registered the crime and started investigation. Therefore, their denial to receive her complaint, even if it is true cannot be said to be unjustified. On the other hand, if really the police have refused to receive her complaint and according to her, the death of her husband was not a mere accident and there was some intrigue behind it, there was a procedural way for her to seek justice. As per Section 154 Cr.P.C., she could have taken steps by sending the report to the Superintendent of Police concerned for registration of FIR and investigation of the matter. She has not taken such recourse. Further, she had another recourse of filing a private complaint before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate for doing justice. It appears she has not followed this recourse also. She only filed the writ petition in the year 2017 seeking a direction to the concerned police to register her complaint as FIR and to conduct investigation. Of course, this Court is not oblivious of the petitioner's submission that she is an illiterate and helpless lady who lost her husband. It appears she has not followed this recourse also. She only filed the writ petition in the year 2017 seeking a direction to the concerned police to register her complaint as FIR and to conduct investigation. Of course, this Court is not oblivious of the petitioner's submission that she is an illiterate and helpless lady who lost her husband. However in a case of this nature, the Court cannot blame the police for dereliction of their duty as they promptly registered the crime and filed the charge sheet. If the case ended in acquittal, it is altogether a different aspect. 10. Now, as far as the recourse to the petitioner is concerned, as per Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C., the petitioner comes within the ambit of 'victim' as she suffered loss of her husband in the incident took place on 11.11.2008. Therefore, if she is so advised, she may prefer an appeal against the judgment in C.C.No.73/2011 subject to relevant laws. It must be noted that the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was inserted to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2008 (5 of 2009), w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The incident in this case was occurred on 11.11.2008. In that view, whether a petitioner can avail the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. to file an appeal is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) represented through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka, (2018) AIR SC 5206 came across a similar question. The incident of attack on the appellant was occurred on 06.02.2009. The District and Sessions Judge acquitted the accused in S.C.No.49/2010 on 28.10.2013. Aggrieved, the victim preferred an appeal in the High Court under Section 372 Cr.P.C., however, the same was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. came into statute book w.e.f. 31.12.2009, but the incident had occurred well before that date by placing reliance on National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi, (2010) 12 SCC 599 [MANU/SC/0831/2010]. The victim then preferred another appeal in High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The High Court held the appeal was not maintainable on the ground that the appeal was not filed in a case instituted upon a complaint before a Magistrate. The victim then filed appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the High Court. The victim then preferred another appeal in High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The High Court held the appeal was not maintainable on the ground that the appeal was not filed in a case instituted upon a complaint before a Magistrate. The victim then filed appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the High Court. In the said Criminal Appeal the question that fell for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the appeal filed by the victim under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was maintainable or not? The Apex Court held thus: "75. In our opinion, the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must also be given a meaning that is realistic, liberal, progressive and beneficial to the victim of an offence. There is a historical reason for this, beginning with the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the 96th Plenary Session on 29th November, 1985. The Declaration is sometimes referred to as the Magna Carta of the rights of victims. One of the significant declarations made was in relation to access to justice for the victim of an offence through the justice delivery mechanisms, both formal and informal. In the Declaration it was stated as follows: 4. Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered. 5. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened where necessary to enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms. 6. 5. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened where necessary to enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms. 6. The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by: (a) Informing victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings and of the disposition of their cases, especially where serious crimes are involved and where they have requested such information; (b) Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the Accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system; (c) Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process; (d) Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary, and ensure their safety, as well as that of their families and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and retaliation; (e) Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution of orders or decrees granting awards to victims. 7. Informal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, including mediation, arbitration and customary justice or indigenous practices, should be utilized where appropriate to facilitate conciliation and redress for victims. 76. Putting the Declaration to practice, it is quite obvious that the victim of an offence is entitled to a variety of rights. Access to mechanisms of justice and redress through formal procedures as provided for in national legislation, must include the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case such as the one that we are presently concerned with. Considered in this light, there is no doubt that the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be given life, to benefit the victim of an offence. 77. Under the circumstances, on the basis of the plain language of the law and also as interpreted by several High Courts and in addition the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is quite clear to us that a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. It must follow from this that the appeal filed by Kodagali before the High Court was maintainable and ought to have been considered on its own merits." In view of the above jurisprudence, the petitioner, if advised, can avail the opportunity of filing an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment in C.C.No.73/2011. 11. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with an observation that if the petitioner is so advised, she may file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment in C.C.No.73/2011 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.