Allowed

Patamsetti Ramalinga Ganesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Feb 2020WP/4159/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order in a Writ Petition where the High Court directed the police to strictly follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar while investigating. The court also directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C and Arnesh Kumar guidelines during investigation.

Patamsetti Ramalinga Ganesh, Vs The State of Andhra… — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.4159 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C in the course of investigation in Crime No.29 of 2020 of Kirlampudi Police Station, East Godavari District.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

As can be seen on the complaint of Tahsildar, Kirlampudi Mandal, the 3^rd respondent registered the case in Crime No.29 of 2020 against the petitioners and others for the offences under Section 447, 353 r/w 34 IPC. The complaint of the Tahsildar is to the effect that in Kirlampudi Mandal during the course of Grama Sabha resolution, certain lands were identified for allotting to poor and houseless people under ‘Navaratnalu’ programme. In that process from Burugupudi, Somarayanampeta and Palem Village Panchayats certain beneficiaries were selected for distributing the land and for the said purpose, the Government land in an extent of Ac.5.42 cents in S.No.140/1 in Burugupudi Village was acquired. In the said land, when the Village Revenue Officer, Burugupudi and Mandal, Revenue Inspector, Kirlampudi were conducting leveling work, the accused while trespassing into the land, obstructed leveling work and altercated with the revenue staff. Hence the complaint.

¶6

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been in possession of the disputed site since long time and they only informed to the revenue authorities about their long possession and they never obstructed the revenue officials. He thus requested to give direction to the 3^rd respondent to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.

¶8

Considering the above submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar¹ during the course of investigation. The petitioners in turn are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency for smooth completion of investigation. No costs.

¶9

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶11

25^th February, 2020 Note : Furnish copy tomorrow B/O pvd

¶12

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

Patamsetti Ramalinga Ganesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patamsetti Ramalinga Ganesh, v. The 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Prabhavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Gunavathi Vs the Joint District Collector

Lingamguntla Shaik Karimullah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Reddemma Vs Principal Secretary

M/s. Syam Traders, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kothuru.Kalanidhi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh