Dismissed

Y. Ramanjaneyulu, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2024WP/24185/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to execute a non-bailable warrant. The Court noted the 4th respondent had a prior petition for quashing which resulted in the cancellation of the NBW. Consequently, the Writ Petition is closed without orders as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

Y. Ramanjaneyulu, Vs Government of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTiCE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 24185 OF 2014,

¶6

Between:

¶7

Y.Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Y.Nettikallu. Aged about 41 years, D.No. 13/183-3, Vijayanagar Colony, Guntakal, Anantapur District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

, Secretariat, Hyderabad,

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District., -

¶12

Dfe1rid^*'°" Kasapuram Police Station, Guntakai, Anantapur

¶13

years,

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

to execute NBW IqS^thl Itth r “"f'laeat'y DIRECT the respondents Class, GuntakaMn PRC No 08 S 2014.® '

¶16

LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NQ.- 30246 OF 2014)

¶17

in the aS fitedln^lu^oVof th?'" “-^-^'anoes stated DiRPPT tho -j PPort of the petition, the High Court may be oleaspd tn

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER

¶19

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

¶20

;, The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

i ,■
/ <br>^ i ■X
A
U.
■

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶24

Writ Petition No.24185 of 2014

¶25

ORDER: -

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶27

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶28

issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not executing NBW against the 4*'’ respondent issued by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntakal in PRC.No.08 of 2014 as illegal, arbitrary^andviolative of Art 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently^DIRECT the respondents to execute NBW against the 4*'’ respondent issued by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntakal, in PRC.No.08of2014 ....”

¶29

None appeared for the petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents is present and submitted that the counter^affidavit was filed by the 3^*^ respondent, dated 09.09.2014.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submitted that, on the private complaint given by the petitioner herein before Judicial Magistrate of^FirstClass, Guntakal and the Judicial Magistrate was issued NBW^against the 4th respondent herein. In the meanwhile, the 4th^respondent filed a petition before this Court vide Criminal Petition^No.8280 of 2017 for quashing the case vide PRC.No.8 of 2014^under Sections 323, 427 and 506 IPC, Section 3(l)(x) of SC⁸⁶ ST^(POA) Act on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,^Guntakal. The 4th respondent submitted in his petitioner that^theJudicial

¶31

¶32

Magistrate had issued NBWs straight away instead of issuing summons and requested this Court for stay of all further proceedings including arrest and to quash the proceedings.^On such petition, this Court had disposed off the said petition and issued orders for cancellation of the NBW that was issued against the 4* respondent herein and requested the^trialCourt to issue summons instead of NBW and to proceed according^to law. Hence, the respondents are not executing NBW against^the 4* respondent issued by the Judical Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal in PRC.No.8 of 2014.

¶33

In view of the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and upon perusing the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, this Court is of^theview that, nothing survives in the present writ petition for any further adjudication.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any.

¶37

shall stand closed.

¶38

To,

¶39

SD/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIC^i^S^ICER

¶40

One CC to SRI BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

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

¶42

Three C.D Copies

¶43

YJ(MBT)

¶44

'fer V ji

¶45

HJGH COURT
^ -<
^ V :08/02/2024
V. %? ■' '-v
ri;^

¶46

ORDER

¶47

WP.No.24185of 2014

¶48

an67^
S 0 ( JUL 2024
s

¶49

CLOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS

Y. Ramanjaneyulu, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Ramanjaneyulu, v. Government 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

Tupakula Sambasiva Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

P.Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary

Andraju Lalitha and 2 Ors. Vs Secy., Home Dept. and 5 Ors.

K.Lakshmanna, S/o. K. Eranna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Ghani Miah, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 2 Ors.

Mamillapalli Venkateswarao Rao (Venkateswarlu) Vs The State Government of a.P., rep by its