Dismissed

Mekala Sankar Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2024WP/14011/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging non-investigation in an FIR alleging criminal breach of trust and mischief was dismissed as infructuous by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh without costs. The order contained no substantive reasoning beyond recording the submission that the matter was irresolvable. This is a procedural closure. One party errored.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; no investigation ordered; no costs awarded.

Mekala Sankar Rao, Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14011 OF 2015

¶8

Between;

¶9

Mekala Sankar Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged: 32 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o Thokapalli Village & Post, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶13

Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District at Ongole.

¶14

Station House Officer, Peddaraveedu Police Station,^Peddaraveedu village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not

¶17

conducting investigation in FIR No.7 of 2015, dated^{13.01.2015onthefile} of 3rd respondent registered under sections 447 & 427 of Indian Penal Code as illegal, irregular, amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to complete the investigation and file Charge Sheet against the accused persons in the said crime.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 18354 OF 2015)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No. 7 of 2015, dated 13.01.2015 on the file of 3rd respondent registered under sections 447, 427 of Indian Penal Code and file Charge Sheet against the accused persons, pending disposal of main writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. MUCHAKAYALA NARAYANA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI [3310] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 14011 OF 2015

¶28

Between:

¶29

¶30

Mekala Sankar Rao,, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged: 32 years,^Occ. Cultivation, R/o Thokapalli Village & Post, Peddaraveedu Mandal,^{PrakasamDistrict.} ...PETITIONER(S)

¶31

AND

¶32

1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary^{toGovernment,} Home Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad,^Hyderabad

¶33

...PETITIONER(S)

¶34

¶35

1. Superintendent of Police Prakasam District at Ongole,

¶36

Station House Officer, Peddaraveedu Police Station,^{Peddaraveeduvillage} and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more^{particularlyoneinthenatureof} WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not conducting investigation in FIR No.7 of 2015, dated 13.01.2015^{onthefileof3rdrespondent} registered under sections 447 & 427 of Indian Penal^Codeas illegal, irregular, amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred^{undertheprovisionsof} Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and violative of Article¹⁴ of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to complete^{theinvestigationand} file Charge Sheet against the accused persons in the^saidcrime

¶39

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 18354 OF 2015)

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the^{HighCourtmaybepleasedtodirect} the 3rd respondent to complete the investigation in^{CrimeNo.7of2015,dated} 13.01.2015 on the file of 3rd respondent registered^{undersections447,427of}

¶41

against the accused persons, pending Indian Penal Code and file Charge Sheet disposal of main writ petition

¶42

Petitioner(s):SRI. MUCHAKAYALA NARAYANA

¶43

Counsel for the Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

Mr.Munali Basu.D, learned counsel, representing learned for the petitioner, become infructuous and no further orders are submits that the matter has necessary in this Writ Petition.

¶46

is dismissed as said submission, this Writ Petition is Recording the infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel , miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand

¶47

closed.

¶48

SD/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTlOhl OFFICER

¶49

¶50

MUCHAKAYALA NARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] 1. One CC to SRI. HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 2. Two CCS to GP for 3. Three CD Copies Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED;12/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.14011 of 2015

1*
•i AV-,
o
C?'
-xO P 4 QCQ Crrr,•;
A1

¶56

DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Mekala Sankar Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Sankar Rao, v. 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

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Bandi Chandraiah

Karnati Narasa Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its

K.Vijaya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Chakra Suhasini D/o. Chalapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradedsh, Rep

Dr. Sri Taneti Srinivasa Rao, S/o T. Babu Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by

A.Satish Reddy, S/ o. Ashok Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.