Dismissed

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao v. Govt of India, Rep by Its Secretary and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jan 2024WP/22813/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a direction to Central authorities to take over account books of respondent company and prosecute it on the petitioner's complaint. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as neither petitioner nor counsel appeared on multiple dates; miscellaneous applications closed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao Vs Govt of India… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22813 OF 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. G. Koteswara Rao. aged about 33 years Occ. Private employee, R/o. Door No. 12-17-18 Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet Town, Guntur District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi

¶11

Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi

¶12

The Central Bureau of Investigation, Rep. by its Director, Plot No. 5-B CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003

¶13

The Assistant Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs Koti, Hyderabad

¶14

M/s. Kapil Infra Avenues Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr. Thummalapenta Audiram D No.40-14-3/1, Chandramouli Puram Near Benz Circle, Vijayawada.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS 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 of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in failing to take action against the 4**^ and 5*'^ respondents pursuant to the complaint made to them on 18.04.2013 ga is illegal, arbitrary and

¶16

consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to take up criminal prosecution against the respondents 4 and 5 by taking over the account books and registers of the S**" respondent and to investigate the same by handing over the investigation to the 3rd respondent for appropriate criminal action and to such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶17

LA. NO: 1 OF 2014rWPMP NO: 28fi14 OF 9ni/i|

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to take up criminal prosecution against the respondents 4 and 5 by taking over the account books and registers of the 5rh respondent and to investigate the same by handing over the investigation to the 3 respondent for appropriate criminal action, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the PetitionerrSRI. M. JANARDHAN RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.2,3: SRI. B. NARAYANA REDDY

¶20

(DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: — Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI.P. VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION N0.22813 OF 2014

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

None appeared for the petitioner. On an earlier two occasions also i.e., on 11.01.2024 and 23.01.2024,^thereisno representation on behalf of the petitioner either personally or through any advocate. It seems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case.

¶26

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Thei'e shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

SOI- A. VIJAYA BABU

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECT

To,

One CC to SRI. M. JANARDHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶35

One CC to SRI. P. VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶36

One CC to SRI. B. NARAYANA REDDY, (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Advocate [OPUC]

¶37

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME,High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT]

¶38

Three C.D.Copies

¶39

¶40

MBT

¶41

HIGH COURT . DATED:25/01/2024

¶42

I,'
■; o:--.
{r
'k
iV^ Vr,
•Ya
r'i
<4'^
;-0 ‘N

¶43

ORDER

¶44

WP.No.22813 of 2014

¶45

DISMISSING THE WP FOR

¶46

NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao v. Govt of India, Rep by Its Secretary and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao v. Govt of India, Rep by Its Secretary and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karuturi Satyanarayana, S/o. Lakshminarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Thiridhi Satyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary

Public Rights Protection Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its

Karreddule Vijaya Vs The Government of A.P.

Dr.Md. Ayesha Banu, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kuntamukkala Sujatha, W/o. Govinda Swamy Vs The Station House Officer