Dismissed

Abdul Nazar Poopayil v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2022WP/32218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition for Mandamus, the petitioner sought orders to force the police to register a crime against respondent No. 4, alleging he was the main culprit. The court observed that the FIR was subsequently registered against respondent No. 4. Consequently, the court held that the grievance was adequately redressed, dismissed the petition, and ordered closure of miscellaneous pending petiti

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed as the FIR is now registered against respondent No. 4. No order as to costs.

Abdul Nazar Poopayil Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.32218 OF 2022

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Writ Petition for Mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 Station House Officer, I Town Police Station of Visakhapatnam, in not taking action against the respondent No.4 on the written report lodged by the petitioner on 05.09.2022 as illegal and consequently sought direction to the respondent Police officials to take action against respondent No.4 on the written report lodged by the petitioner.

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioner is the defacto-complainant in Crime No.301 of 2022. The said crime was registered on the written report lodged by the petitioner in I Town Police Station of Visakhapatnam on 29.09.2022.

¶6

The grievance of the petitioner is that, it is clearly stated in the written report lodged by the petitioner with the Police that the

¶7

¶8

respondent No.4 herein is the main culprit who is responsible for the said offence and yet the said crime was not registered against him and it is registered against some unknown persons.

¶9

When the matter came up for admission on 12.10.2022, a copy of the F.I.R. that is produced, disclosed that the name of 4^th respondent is not shown as accused in the said F.I.R. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home sought time to seek instructions in this regard. Again when the matter is listed today, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the F.I.R. is now registered against the respondent No.4 and he has also placed a copy of the said F.I.R. showing the name of respondent No.4 as accused along with others.

¶10

Therefore, the grievance of the Writ Petitioner is adequately redressed.

¶11

Recording the aforesaid submission that the respondent No.4 now is shown as accused along with others in the above crime, the Writ Petition is closed. Law has to take its own course

¶12

¶13

as regards the crime that was registered against the respondent No.4 and other accused. No order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ

¶15

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶16

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date: 14.10.2022

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.32218 OF 2022

¶22

Date: 14-10-2022

¶23

¶24

Abdul Nazar Poopayil v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Nazar Poopayil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Dorababu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Naredla Rajani Kumari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Rev. Ravi Chebrolu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mannava Anjaneyulu Vs the State of Ap

K J D Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Javishetty Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh