Disposed

Muthabathula Ratna Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Nov 2023WP/30154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging the maintenance of criminal proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C.. While finding the petition not maintainable against the Magistrate, the Court directed the Magistrate to abide by a previous coordinate bench order in W.P.No.27761 of 2023 and closed pending miscellaneous matters.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs; the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was directed to act keeping in mind the order in W.P.No.27761 of 2023; pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Muthabathula Ratna Kumar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 30154 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Muthabathula Ratna Kumar, S/o. Verriyya, Aged 46 years. Correspondent, CBM Junior College for girls (Aided), D.No.23-1-75/1, Nageswara rao street, CBM Compound, Kakinada Urban, Kakinada District, A.P.-533⁰⁰⁴

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by it its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Amaravathi Guntur^District.

¶11

The Inspector of police (LandO), Ill-Town police station, Kakinada Urban Kakinada District.

¶12

Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kakinada Revenue Division, Kakinada, Kakinada District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents particularly Respondent No 2 filed complaint before the Respondent No 3 is illegal, arbitrary, un-constitutional, bad and clear violation of Art. 14, 21 of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 to declare^{theorderinCr.P.C.107} passed on 30.10.2023 in M.C.No.23/2023 is a nullity.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3'^'^ respondent that put in abeyance the section 107 of CrPC proceedings dated 30.10.2023 in MC.No.23/2023 of the court sub divisional magistrate, Kakinada until upto action taken by the VI additional District Judge, Kakinada as per the orders of the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.27761 of 2023.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. DEVAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI N.NIRMAL KUMAR,

¶18

AGP FOR HOME

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GO FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶22

WRIT PETITION N0.30154 OF 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶25

India, seeking the indulgence of the Court with the following prayer:

¶26

‘‘ to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly Respondent^N0.2 filed complaint before the Respondent N0.3 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, bad and clear violation of Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondent N0.3 to declare the order in Cr.P.C. N0.107 passed on 30.10.2023ⁱⁿ M.C. N0.23 of 2023 is a nullity".

¶27

Heard Sri S.Devakumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner^andSri N.Nirmal Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader^forHome-1for

¶28

the Respondents.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that despite the order dated i9.io.2023passed in W.P.N0.27761 of 2023, giving a specific direction to the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, to dispose of the I.A. N0.969 of 2023 in O.S. N0.65 of 2023 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of such order,^learned SubDivisional Magistrate, Kakinada proceeded further and issued the impugned notice for appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner would

¶30

¶31

submit that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kakinada^{wasalsoinformed}

¶32

about the order of the Hon'ble High Court and as such seeks stay of all

¶33

further proceedings before him.

¶34

Whereas Learned Assistant Government Pleader for^Home-1would submit that the petition under Art,226 is not maintainable against the

¶35

proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kakinada^{asthePetitioner} has to carry the matter in revision.

¶36

To this, learned counsel for the petitioner would^{submitthatthe} petition may be disposed of by observing the same.

¶37

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kakinada is directed toact keeping in mind, the order passed by a Coordinate^Benchofthis Court in W.P.N0.27761 of 2023.

¶38

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR pK' SECTION OFFICER

¶43

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Amaravathi Guntur District.

¶44

The Inspector of Police (LandO), Ill-Town Police Station, Kakinada Urban, Kakinada District.

¶45

The Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kakinada Revenue Division, Kakinada, Kakinada District.

¶46

One CC to Sri S.Devakumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Three CD Copies.

ssb gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/11/2023

ORDER

WP.No.30154 of 2023

Ifrop'es

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Muthabathula Ratna Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthabathula Ratna Kumar 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

Vuyyuru Surendra Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Katta Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Singh Vs the State of Ap

N.Rakesh, Vs Rayalaseema University

Ramisetti Seshamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kambala Sai Venkata Rao Vs Smt.Kambala Siva Durga Pavani at Natipam Siva Durga Pavani