Disposed

Kalakoti Sivamma w/o Anji Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Apr 2024WP/21076/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIR under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Respondent police reported the trial ended in acquittal in April 2017. The High Court held the cause did not survive and closed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as cause did not survive following acquittal in C.C.No.117 of 2017; no order as to costs.

Kalakoti Sivamma w/o Anji Reddy, Vs The Government… — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 21076 OF 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kalakoti Sivamma w/o Anji Reddy, R/o D.No: 25-102 Pamarru Village

¶8

Pamarru Mandal, Krishna district.

¶9

Kalakoti Anjireddy s/o Chennareddi, R/o D.No; 25-102, Vishnulayam Street, Pamarru Village and Mandal, Krishna district.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its. Principle Secretary

¶13

Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

Kalakoti Kanaka Mahalakshmi & Lakshmi, W/o Kalakoti, Venkata Rami Reddy D/o Patnabi Kanaka Reddy, R/o D. No Laveti Vari Veedhi Near gowri devi Temple Kothapet, Eluru, West Godavari District

¶15

The S.H.O, Women Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari Dsitrict

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 the Writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3 Respondent police in registering the crime vide F.I.R.NO. 32/2014 u/s 498-A and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.O and 3 & 4 of D.P Act agaisnt the petitioners though offence is not attracted and complaint is abouse of process, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the same.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 26421 OF 20141

¶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 stay of all further proceedings in Cr.No.32/2014 u/s. 498-a and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and 3 & 4 of D.P. Act on the file of Women Police Station Eluru, pending disposal of the above writ Peition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner ;SRI. SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 3: GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: NONE APPEARED

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶24

<r,

¶25

APHC010046502014

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3310]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND,AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 21076/2014

¶33

Between:

¶34

Kalakoti Sivamma and another

¶35

...PETITIONER(S)

¶36

AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶41

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶42

(

¶43

“...to issue the writ, order or direction preferably^awrit in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action^of the 3^^ respondent police in registering the crime vide F.I.R.NO. 32/2014 u/s 498-A and 506 r/w 34 of I P C^and 3&4 of D.P Act against the petitioner though offence^isnot attracted and complaint is abuse of process, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the same...’’

¶44

Heard Mr.J.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.Suresh Kurnar Potturi, learned counsel for the petitioners^and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing^for

¶45

¶46

the respondent police.

¶47

¶48

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, while placing the written instructions of the Inspector of^Police,Disha Women Police Station, Eluru, submits that during pendency^ofthe writ petition, investigation of the case in Crime No.32^of2014was completed and charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.117^of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru and the same case was ended in acquittal^on 11.04.2017.

¶49

In view of the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the cause in the writ petition does not survive further and hence, the Writ Petition is closed.^Thereshall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,^shall

¶51

stands closed.

¶52

Sd/-G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRI. SURESH KUMAR POTTURIM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to SRI. SURESH KUMAR POTTURIM, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR HOME (AP), High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶58

Three CD Copies

PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED:25/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.21076 of 2014

S 10 JAN 2I?5 ,S

CLOSING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS

Kalakoti Sivamma w/o Anji Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalakoti Sivamma w/o Anji Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its

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

R. Narayana Swamy, Vs The Director General of Police

P.Liyakhat Ali Khan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Parvathini Narsimha Rao, E.G.Dist., and 2 Otrs. Vs State of a.P.,Home,Hyd.,and 2 Otrs.

Mulla Abdul Rab Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

V Sattiraju Vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others

G.S.Mansoor, S/o. G.S.Abdul Khader, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh