Dismissed

Sanganaboyina Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Mar 2024WP/21148/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging allegedly illegal acts by a police sub-inspector, the High Court closed the petition finding that a complaint had been registered in a related criminal case for which a chargesheet was pending, thus causing the writ to not survive.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed. No order as to costs.

Sanganaboyina Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21148 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sanganaboyina Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Singarappa, Aged 44 yrs., R/o. Tallaproddatur, Kondapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

1. The Superintendent of Police, YSR Kadapa District,

¶14

The Station House Officer, Talla Podduturu Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶15

M. Vishnu Vardhan, S/o Not Known, Aged about 38 yrs.,S.I. of Police Talla Proddatur P.S.Kondapuram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa^District.

¶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 tolssue an appropriate writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the atrocious

¶18

acts committed by the 4th Respondent towards the petitioner^herein as illegal arbitrary and contrary to part III of the Indian constitution.

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015rWPMP. NO: 27245 OF 2015)

¶20

, 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 direct the 2^^ Respondent to take action against^the 3 rd & 4 th respondents taking consideration of the petitioner representation dated 18 05-2015 as per procedure establish by law pending disposal^ofthe case.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: NONE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

APHC010020732015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF

¶26

ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

[3310]

¶28

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 21148/2015

¶32

Between:

¶33

l.SANGANABOYINA CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/0. SINGARAPPA, AGED 44 YRS., R/0. TALLAPRODDATUR, KONDAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

l.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING HYDERABAD.

¶37

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶38

3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALLA PODDUTURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶39

4.M VISHNU VARDHAN, S/0 NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 38 YRS., S.I. OF POLICE, TALU\ PRODDATUR P.S.KONDAPURAM MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶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 or direction or order more particularly^one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the atrocious^acts committed by the 4th respondent towards the petitioner herein as illegal arbitrary and contrary to part III^oftheIndian constitution.

¶42

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner: l.VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

Heard Ms.K.Srilakshmi, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr.Venkat Reddy Kodumury, learned counsel^forthe petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.-

¶47

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing on the counter filed by the respondent Police, submits that^earlierthe petitioner herein filed a petition in CFR No.357 of²⁰¹⁵ in Crime No.39 of 2015 against the respondents 3 and 4^before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and the same was closed vide order, dated 30.06.2015 stating that the Sub-Inspector of Police/4 th respondent herein, Talla Proddatur acted as per law and procedure. By suppressing all these facts, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, while placing the written instructions of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Talla Proddatur Police Station, Y.S.R.Kacfapa^District, further submits^thaton

¶48

¶49

the complaint filed by the petitioner herein, FIR in Crime No.39 of 2015 was registered and after investigation,^charge sheet has been filed vide S.C.No.240 of 2017 on the^fileofthe learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur and^thesame is pending.

¶50

In view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the cause in^thewrit petition does not survive and hence, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending.

shall stands closed.

I I

To,

SD/- G. HELA NAIDU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// M SECTION OFFICER

¶56

One CC to SRI VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to SRI VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh^[OUT] 3. Two C.D Copies MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.21148 of 2015

5
m
S 13 SEP 20/''* Co

¶63

CLOSING THE W.P

¶64

WITHOUT COSTS

Sanganaboyina Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanganaboyina Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

T.Sudhakar son of T.Venkataramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

Ganda Srinivas Reddy, Vs The Station House Officer

Lalitha Yadav Vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept.,Hyd., and 3 Others

Pinnama Raju Rama Krishnam Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mookala Appala Naidu, S/o.Suryanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

P. Indrasen Naidu, Vs The State of A.P.