Dismissed

Narra Venkateswaramma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2024WP/1666/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged inaction in investigating a criminal case, the High Court noted that the underlying criminal trial resulted in acquittal. Consequently, the court held that the cause of action no longer survives and closed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed without order as to costs, and any pending interlocutory applications were stood closed.

Narra Venkateswaramma Vs The State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1666 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Narra Venkateswaramma, W/o Venkateswarlu aged about 64 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Inkollu Road, Moodubommala centre Parchur,^{PrakasamDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal, Secretary, Home Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police Prakasam District at Ongole, -

¶13

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,, Chirala, Prakasam^District.

¶14

The Station House Officer Parchur Police Station,,^{PrakasamDistrict.}

¶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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the respondent No. 4 herein in investigating into Cr.No.113/2014, though the said crime is registered on 8-10-2014 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to take action against the 4th respondent for dereliction of his duties, and to grant

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 2231 OF 2015)

¶18

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 pass orders directing the Respondent No. 4 herein to forthwith arrest the accused person in relation to Cr.No. 113/2014, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMIDI SATHYANARAYANA

¶20

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

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

[ 3310 ]

¶24

r'
V
/ ■7 i?3-
/
•! .T I I
i'O 5 ^;u
t. ^
r-

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶28

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO; 1666 OF 2015

¶32

Between:

¶33

Narra Venkateswaramma, W/o Venkateswarlu aged about 64 years, occ: Housewife, R/o Inkollu Road, Moodubommala centre Parchur, Prakasam District.

¶34

...PETITIONER(S)

¶35

AND

¶36

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal, Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶37

The Superintendent of Police Prakasam District at Ongole,

¶38

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chirala, Prakasam District.

¶39

The Station House Officer Parchur Police Station, Prakasam District.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

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, to declare the inaction of the respondent No. 4 herein in investigating into Cr.No.113/2014, though the said crime is registered^on 8- 10-2014 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional,^and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to

¶42

¶43

¶44

take action against the 4 th respondent for dereliction of his duties.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. RAMIDI

¶46

SATHYANARAYANA

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶48

The Court made the following:

¶49

Heard Mr.Bala Krishna, learned counsel representing Mr.Ramidi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for^the respondents. 2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, while placing the written instructions, dated 13.02.2024 of the Sub-Inspector^of Police, Parchur Police Station, Bapatia District, submits^that . after completion of investigation in Crime No.113 of 2014, charge sheet was taken on file as P.R.C.No.l2 of 2015^bythe learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur and thereafter, the said case was numbered as S.C.No.264 of 2017 in the Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division at^Ongole and after commencement of trial, the said sessions^casewas ended in acquittal on 14.11.2022 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

¶50

¶51

In view of the submissions nriade by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the cause in^thewrit petition does not survive and hence, the Writ Petition is

¶52

closed. No order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending.

¶54

shall stands closed.

¶55

SDI- K. J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

/section OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI RAMIDI SATHYANARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶60

Two C.D Copies MBT

HfeH COURT

DATED:13/02/2024

ORDER

O'
x>‘
"-5!X<br>O
d: tTSSS
|\o 16 JUL 20211 e?/|
’■V'S''-
HCjSr

¶66

WP.No.1666of2015

¶67

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Narra Venkateswaramma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narra Venkateswaramma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

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

Mekala Sankar Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

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.

Byreddy Chinna Venkateswar Rao, s/o. late Byreddy Appala Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. G. Chowdeswari, Anantapur Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Home,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Sri.M.Krishna and 2 Others Vs the State of Ap, Home Dept., and 4 Others