Disposed

Vaggala Sambrajyam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2023WP/30263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and a miscellaneous application seeking directives to the police to provide protection to old-aged petitioners facing harassment by the sons of the petitioner. The court directed the SHO to provide protection upon intimation.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 5 directed to provide necessary protection to the petitioners if they feel threatened by their sons.

Vaggala Sambrajyam Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30263 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vaggala Sambrajyam, W/o. Rama Mohana Rao, Aged 61 years, Occ. House Wife, R/ o. Edulapalli Village, Nagaram Mandal, Bapatia^District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Bapatia District, Bapatia 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenali, Guntur^District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Repalle Rural Police Station, GUNTUR^District. 5. The Station House Officer, Nagaram Police Station, Bapatia District. 6. Gade Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Asst. Sub-Inspector, Office at Nagaram Police Station, Nagaram, Bapatia 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 order, writ petition or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the inaction of the respondents No. 2 to 5 in not considering the petitioners spandana representations dated 05.06.2023 and 31.07.2023 and not protecting the life from the son's of the petitioner by taking action, even though MLC case was recorded in Government hospital as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and against the code of Criminal Procedure and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 05.06.2023 and 31.07.2023 made by the petitioner as per law.

¶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 diredt the respondents 2 to 5 to consider the representations^{dated05.06.2023} and 31.07.2023 made by the petitioner as per law.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitloner:SRI. KALE VIJAYA RAJU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.6:

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

\ ’1

¶22

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.30263 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the indulgence of the Court with the following prayer:

¶26

“ to issue o writ, one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declarins the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not considering the petitioners spandana representations dated 05.06.2023 and 31.07.2023 and not protecting the life from the son’s of the petitioner by taking acting, even though^MLCcasewas recorded in Government hospital as illegal, arbitrary^andviolative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and against the code of Criminal Procedure and consequently direct the respondents^to consider the representations dated 05.06.2023 and 31.07.2023 made by the petitioner as per law. ”

¶27

Heard Sri Kale Vijaya Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Nirmal Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home-1 for the respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that^thesonsofthe writ petitioner have been harassing the petitioner^{andherhusbandforthe} last six months. They have been giving representation to the police, but no protection has been given so far. There is a threat^{tothelifeofthewrit} petitioners in the hands of their sons.

¶29

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home-1 would submit that a crime has been registered against the accused vide^Cr. No. 142 of 2023

¶30

¶31

dated 13.11.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 506, 509 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Nagaram Police Station. Investigation is in progress.

¶32

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the grievance of the petitioners, who are the old aged persons. Respondent No.5 is directed to provide necessary protection to them to attend the cause. The petitioner can intimate to the Respondent No.5 as and when they feel threat in the hands of their sons.

¶33

In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, at request of^{thelearnedcounsel} representing both the parties.

¶34

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶35

Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶40

The Superintendent of Police, Bapatia District, Bapatia 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenali, Guntur District.

¶41

The Inspector of Police, Repalle Rural Police Station, GUNTUR District. 5. The Station House Officer, Nagaram Police Station, Bapatia District. 6. Gade Venkateswara Rao,S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Asst. Sub-Inspector, Office at Nagaram Police Station, Nagaram, Bapatia District.

¶42

One CC to SRI. KALE VIJAYA RAJU Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three C.D.Copies nm gi

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/11/2023

ORDER

WP.No.30263 of 2023

iJiropjes

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Vaggala Sambrajyam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaggala Sambrajyam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bankuru Kannam Naidu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Muthabathula Ratna Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kaja Rama Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vegesana Narendra Varma Raju ATVegesana Narendra Varma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nari Sekhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh