Disposed

Andraju Lalitha and 2 Ors. v. Secy., Home Dept. and 5 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Jan 2024WP/10135/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This adjunct order concerns the closure of Writ Petition No. 10135 of 2014. Upon hearing counsel, the Court accepted the petitioners' request to record a specific submission regarding a registered criminal case and subsequently ordered the closure of the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' request for the Court to record a submission and close the writ was granted.

Andraju Lalitha and 2 Ors. Vs Secy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

A
■/?

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::

¶3

AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

fte

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 10135 OF 2014

¶10

Between:

¶11

Andraju Lalitha, W/o A. Venkatewara rao, Aged 39 years, Managing partner M/s Sree Lalitha Marines,

¶12

Andraju Venkateswara Rao, S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business,

¶13

Andraju Sivaramakrishna, S/o A. Venkatewara rao. Aged 23 years, (All R/o D.No. 678/679/ K, Bitragunta, Jarugumalli, Mandal, Prakasham Dist)

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Inspector General of police, Prakasam District.

¶18

The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. Ongole,

¶19

The Station House Officer, Jarugumalli Police Station, Jarugumalli Prakasam District.

¶20

M/s. Triton Exports Imports, Rep by its Managing Partner, D.No. 10-30-57, Bapuji Nagar, Kavali,S.P.S.R.Nellore Dist.

¶21

M. Vamsi Krishna, S/o. M. Anjaneyulu, aged 29 years. Managing Partner, M/s. Triton Exports Imports, D.No. 10-30-57, Bapuji Nagar, Kavali,S.P.S.R.Nellore Dist.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

¶24

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 a Writ, order or direction, especially^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents. No. 3 & 4 in threatening the petitioners herein to settle the matter with the 6*'' respondent who is the managing partner of the 5th respondent and forcibly took the 1 St petitioner to the Jargumilli police station and obtained signatures of the petitioner on stamp papers in the absence^ofthe2nd petitioner and made her to sit from 5.00 A.M to 11.00P.M. and continuously threatening the petitioners' to Settle the issue with the 5‘^ & 6*'' respondent by issuing the cheques as illegal, arbitrary and violation^{ofArticles14and} 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 & 4 not interfere in the Civil litigation between the petitioners and respondents 5 & 6 and harass the petitioners.

¶25

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014rWPMP. NO: 12742 OF 20141

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 3 & 4 not harass the petitioners by calling them to the police station every day and insist the petitioners^{tosettletheissue} with the respondents 5 & 6 during the pendency of the^{aboveWritPetition}

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. E VV S RAVI KUMAR

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent NoS. 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 &6: K V ADITYA CHOWDARY

¶30

the Court made the following order:

¶31

¶32

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶33

Writ Petition No.10135 of 2014

¶34

ORDER: -

¶35

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶36

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶37

''....to issue a Writ order or direction especially^onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action^ofthe respondents Nos.3 & 4 in threatening the petitioners^herein to settle the matter with the 6''’ respondent who is the managing partner of the 5^" respondent and forcibly^tookthe f®' petitioner to the Jargumilli police station and^obtained signatures of the 2"^ petitioner on stamp papers in the absence of the 2nd petitioner and made her to sit from 5.00 A.M to 11.00 P.M and continuously threatening the petitioners to settle the issue with the S''’ & respondents by issuing the cheques as illegal arbitrary and violation^of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 & 4 not interfereⁱⁿ the civil litigation between the petitioners and respondents⁵ & 6 and harass the petitioners....”

¶38

Heard Sri V.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents.

¶39

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3"^ and 4th respondents have registered the crime against the 5^"^ and 6tt^ respondents and^hence, requested this Court to record the same and close the^writ

¶40

petition.

¶41

¶42

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the

¶43

petitioner, the Writ Petition is closed.

¶44

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if^any.

¶46

shall stand closed.

¶47

Sd/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri. E VV S Ravi Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CCS to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.^[OUT]

¶53

One CC to Sri. K V Aditya Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CD Copies

JSS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 29/01/2024

^pandH^
X IB
2 J'JL 2-2'!
o
Current Section
V«esPATC*»e,;-

ORDER

WP.No.10135 of 2014

CLOSING THE W.P.

WITHOUT COSTS

Andraju Lalitha and 2 Ors. v. Secy., Home Dept. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andraju Lalitha and 2 Ors. v. Secy., Home Dept. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao Vs Govt of India, Rep by Its Secretary and 4 Others

Dr.Md. Ayesha Banu, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kuntamukkala Sujatha, W/o. Govinda Swamy Vs The Station House Officer

Rajoli Veera Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tupakula Sambasiva Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

P.Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary