Disposed

Rajualapati Anjanadevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Feb 2024WP/17541/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to compel registration of an FIR on her 4-4-2015 complaint against P Mohan Rao alleging assault. Police submitted written instructions stating parties were bound over under STC No.608/2015 to maintain law and order. With no one appearing for the petitioner and the cause not surviving, the Court closed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition closed with no order as to costs and pending interlocutory applications closed.

Rajualapati Anjanadevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 17541 OF 2015

¶5

Between:

¶6

Rajualapati Anjanadevi, W/o Rambabu age 32 years, D.No 29-139, Sivaparvathi Nagar, Yenamalakuduru Village , Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principle Secretary, Home

¶10

Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The S.H.O, Penamaluru Police Station, Penamaluru Mandal krishna District

¶12

P.Mohan Rao, S/o Veereswara Rao, aged major, R/o Yanamalakuduru Police Station, Penamaluru Mandal, krishna 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 writ or order or orders more particularlyⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus in declaring the action of the Respondents action of the respondents in not registering the F.I.R based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 4-4-2015 which is being disclosed the cognizable offence as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2"^^ respondent to register the F.I.R as per the complaint given by the Petitioner 4-4-2015 in accordance with the law.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 22713 OF 2Q1fi)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2^^^ respondent to register^theF.I.R as per the complaint given by the Petitioner 4-4-2015 in accordance with the law pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.S:--

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

[ 3310 ]

¶21

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

¶22

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 17541 OF 2015

¶26

Between:

¶27

Rajulapati Anjanadevi, W/o Rambabu, age 32 years, D.No 29-139, Sivaparvathi Nagar, Yenamalakuduru Village , Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶28

...PETITIONER(S)

¶29

AND

¶30

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

¶31

The S H O, Penamaluru Police Station, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District

¶32

P Mohan Rao, S/o Veereswara Rao, aged major, R/o Yanamalakuduru Police Station, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

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 writ or order or orders more particularly in the nature of^Writ of Mandamus in declaring the action of the respondents in not registering the F.I.R based on the complaint given^bythe 4-4-2015 which is being disclosed the petitioner on cognizable offence as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct^the 2"'^ respondent to register the F.I.R as per the complaint given by the Petitioner 4-4-2015 in accordance with^thelaw.

¶35

¶36

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶38

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

None appeared for the petitioner.

¶41

When the matter is taken up consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has submitted the written instructions, dated 22.06.2015, of the Assistant SubInspector of Police, Penamaluru Police Station, Vijayawada City, wherein it is stated that

¶42

"It is respectfully submitted that on 04.04.2015 one Rajulapati Anjanadevi, who is the petitioner herein lodged complaint with the respondent police stating that when the 3""^ respondent P. Mohan Rao came to there and started selling toddy which is contrary to their rules, by noting that when the petitioner questioned about him, hence he attacked her with toddy rope which is in his hands and bet her indiscriminately on her legs, hands back and ear with force, and abused her in filthy language, hence requested to take necessary action. Basing on the complaint, the respondent police summoned both the parties and bind over them vide STC No.608/2015 U/Sec.l60 IPC at Penamaluru PS Krishna District and produced both the parties on 10.06.2015 before the V Special Metropolitan Magistrate Court Vijayawada City to maintain law and order, hence the allegations made against the respondent police are false and baseless."

¶43

¶44

¶45

Recording the written instructions and as the cause in the writ petition does not survive, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- A.VIJAYA BABU assistant registrar

¶51

I SECTION OFFICER

¶52

One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, Advocate [OPUC] ^^;2^Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶53

Three CD Copies.

ssb j

HIGH COURT

DATED: 15/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.17541 of 2015

OFaWoh
'S 1 2 SEP 2C2!,
Currwl Stclion

¶60

CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Rajualapati Anjanadevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajualapati Anjanadevi 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

Mr. v. Jayakumar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.v.Shivappa, Vs The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Prl.

Puchalapalli Mohan Reddy S/o. Late. Venuku Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. M.Vijaya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chillakuru Indiramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tigiripalli Papa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh