Dismissed

Gandluru. Idayatulla, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2020WP/20820/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the acts of police officers. The court rejected the claim of illegal interference because a FIR was registered against the petitioner, stating the case must take its own course and no direction prohibits his interference.

What did the court decide?

No direction to respondents not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioner granted. Writ petition dismissed.

Gandluru. Idayatulla, Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20820 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the acts of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, who are the Inspector of Police of Railway Kondapuram Rural Circle Police Station, Kondapuram Town, YSR Kadapa District and the Station House Officer of Sinhadripuram Police Station, in chasing the petitioner to kill him in a fake encounter in connection with the settlement of civil disputes, as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to pay any unnecessary domiciliary visits to his house.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader for Home on instructions would submit that one Veligandla Karishma lodged a report with the 4^th respondent-Station House Officer of Simhadripuram Police Station, alleging that some persons along with the petitioner herein, trespassed into her property, beat her and threatened her with dire consequences and that the said report was registered as a case in Crime No.143 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and that the said case is now under investigation.

¶7

Therefore, in that view of the matter, when a case was registered in the above crime for the aforesaid offences on a

¶8

¶9

report lodged by the de facto complainant therein, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents have been illegally interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner. Since the crime is registered under the aforesaid F.I.R. in Simhadripuram Police Station and as the petitioner is shown as A-3 in the said crime, the law has to take its own course. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be declared that the acts of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents as alleged by the petitioner, are illegal and no direction to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents not to interfere with the liberty of the petitioner can be given.

¶10

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home that the petitioner is A-3 in Crime No.143 of 2020 registered in Simhadripuram Police Station and as law has to take its own course, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶12

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶13

Date : 08-12-2020 ARR

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.20820 OF 2020

¶17

Date : 08-12-2020

¶18

ARR

Gandluru. Idayatulla, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandluru. Idayatulla, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chukka Kanaka Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gandluru Nageshwaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammula Sivannarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Muralidhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sreenivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhukya Lokeswara Rao, Vs Adothu Beemudu