Disposed

S. Arifullah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2023WP/28095/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition filed under Article 226 regarding police inaction and trespass. The court held the matter was covered by a prior common order and disposed of the petition, allowing petitioners to pursue Cr.P.C. remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of on the premise that the matter is covered by a prior common order; no specific writ or direction is granted.

S. Arifullah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.28095 of 2023

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:

¶6

“.... a writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of Respondent No.2 on the complaints dated 17.09.2023 and 18.10.2023 lodged by the petitioners against Respondent Nos.3 to 6, who tried to threatent the petitioners and illegally trespass, and encroach the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.259-3 to an extent of Ac.0.14 cents sitauted at Kotunur Village, Hindupur Mandal, Satya Sai District, by cutting the existing trees, as illegal, improper, arbitray and unwarranted.”

¶7

Heard Smt.Lakshmi Priyanvitha Popuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶8

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶9

acceded to, by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.29945 & 30004 of 2023, dated 23.11.2023, wherein this Court held as follows:

¶10

“37. Further, in the cases where the informant is aggrieved by non-registration of FIR in a cognizable offence, the avenues of remedies available are as follows;

¶11

¶12

a. Send the information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police Section, vide 154(3).

¶13

If not registered even then,

¶14

b. Approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate‟s Court by filing a private complaint, vide Sections 190, 200 and 156(3).

¶15

38. Before parting with these cases, it apposite to mention that at least plural number of matters of this nature i.e., „seeking direction to the police to register complaints‟, are being on the list each day. In this regard, this Court finds it appropriate to issue the following directions to the Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh to take appropriate steps;

¶16

i. To circulate a copy of the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1 , once again, along with a translated copy in Telugu for better understanding among the police personnel.

¶17

ii. To sensitize the police personnel at every cadre about the guidelines issued at para 120 therein, to achieve the object in letter and spirit.

¶18

iii. To develop a mechanism to inform the informant/complainant about the stage and result thereafter, in cases where F.I.R. is not registered within 24 hours, as it requires preliminary enquiry.

¶19

39. In result, these Writ Petitions are disposed of, with the above observations. This Court is not inclined to

¶20

¶21

interfere in these Writ Petitions, considering the discussion supra.

¶22

However, the Petitioners herein are at liberty to work out their remedies as available under the Cr.P.C., before appropriate forum, if so advised.

¶23

40. It is also made clear that no opinion is given on the merits of the matters.

¶24

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.”

¶25