The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 as infructuous. The petitioner sought quashing of non-registration of a crime and directions to police authorities to provide protection.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
•» %
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
O
WEDNESDAY .THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY ^
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR T
h
a. «j o
PRESENT
V
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 154fiQ OF 9nii;
Between:
occ. Housewife R/0
...PETITIONER
AND
® tillage,
...RESPONDENTS
;Ij™=ritt “Siriran; t and src„'r.'~H He"?”complaint of the petitioner dated 31 n4n1 a h hands. Metmoner dated.. 31-03-2015 and provide protection from their
LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 201fi.«; OF 2015t
Petition under Section 151 CPC the affidavit filed ini f .u that in the circumstances stated in m support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
•‘•'r
4
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
♦
[3310]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 15489 OF 2015
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
<br>
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
♦
2
of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not registering the crime against the5thand 6th respondents, basing on the complaint of the petitioner Dt. 31-03-2015 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently todirect the respondent.No.2 to 4 to take necessary action by registering the crime against the 5th and 6th Respondents basing on the complaint of the petitioner dated:. 31-032015 and provide protection from their hands
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
Mr.M.S.P.Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Dr.Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and it has become infructuous and hence, prayed todismiss the writ petition.
Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,
shall stands closed.
SD/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
A
1
HIGH COURT
DATED:21/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.15489 of 2015
i(^ -O’
510
I "Mye
B
®n? s
■Oft-
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous given the submissions made by the counsel.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devarakonda Malleswari
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Ravi Venkateswara Rao
Ravi Gopal
K MANMADHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
