Dismissed

K Balarama Murthy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Nov 2019WP/2052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-issuance of a charge sheet and non-investigation regarding suspects involved in a murder case. Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to direct further investigation. Court held investigation completed and directed party to approach Magistrate for further investigation via application or private complaint.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed; party directed to approach Magistrate for further investigation or file private complaint.

K Balarama Murthy Vs the State of Ap — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.2052 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in not considering the representation, dated 10-11-2018 submitted by the petitioner for not registering the crime against the respondents 7 to 9 for their involvement in murder of the petitioner’s second son and for further investigation in the Cr.No.194 of 2018, dated 02-11-2018 of Narsapuram Town Police Station to the office of the 2^nd and 3rd respondents for investigation about the involvement of the respondents 7 to 9 along with the prime accused, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to take up enquiry and investigate into.

¶5

No representation for the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader for Home represented that entire investigation is completed, charge is also filed against A1 to A6 and it is registered as P.R.C.No.7 of 2019 on file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. No charge sheet is filed against respondents 7 to 9, as no incriminating material was found against them based on the evidence collected during investigation. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this petition.

¶7

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, if for any reason, any evidence is found during trial before the Sessions Court, the petitioner or the learned Public Prosecutor may file an appropriate application for further investigation before the Magistrate concerned, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. The State of Gujarat and 2 others¹ , or file a private complaint in accordance with law.

¶8

1 2019 (4) Scale 1

¶9

¶10

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

¶12

closed.

¶13

____________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶14

Date: 14-11-2019 IS

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

Writ Petition No.2052 of 2019

¶18

Date: 14.11.2019

¶19

K Balarama Murthy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Balarama Murthy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. K.Venkata Lakshmamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Anjali Charitable Trust, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Ghousia Begum, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

V K Mani Vs the Govt. of Ap

S. Somu Rajeswara Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Dontu Channa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh