Disposed

P Lakshmi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2024WP/3085/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a writ petition challenging police inaction and failure to register an FIR based on a complaint dated 11.02.2019. The court accepted the petitioner's submission that the cause does not survive for adjudication and closed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

No further orders; the writ petition and related miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.

P Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3085 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. P. Lakshmi, W/o. P.Chinna, aged 26 yrs., r/o. H.No.171, Alaganur village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its PrI. Secretary (Home), Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur, State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District at Kurnool

¶12

The Circle Inspector, Nandikotkur Circle, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District,

¶13

The Station House Officer, Midthur Police Station Midthur, Kurnool District.

¶14

Mr. P.Chinna, S/o. Late P.Nagaraju, r/o. Alaganur village Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶15

Mr. P.Vijayabhaskar, S/o. Late P.Nagaraju, r/o. Alaganur village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶16

Smt. P.Rajakumari, W/o. Mr. Vijaybhaskar, r/o. Alaganur village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶17

Mr. P. Samuel, S/o. Late P.Nagaraju, r/o. Alaganur village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶18

Smt. P.Sandhya, W/o. P.Samuel, r/o. Alaganur village,^{MidthurMandal} Kurnool District

¶19

lO.Lavanya, D/o. and age not known to the petitioner, Occ. Nurse, r/o. Military Colony, Bhupal Nagar, Kurnool.

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 11.02.2019 and not even -egistering an FIR or causing any enquiries^intermsofthe Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P, as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to take action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 11.02.2019 and to register FIR

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take action on the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 11.02.2019 forthwith by registering an FIR, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J U M V PRASAD

¶25

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 10 : -

¶28

The Court made the following Order:

¶29

APHC010067742019

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶31

[3368]

¶32

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶33

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 3085/2019

¶37

Between:

¶38

P Lakshmi ...PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1.J U M VPRASAD

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.GPFOR HOME(AP)

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief;

¶48

“to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more^inthe nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 11.02.2019 and not^even registering an FIR or causing any enquiries in terms^of

¶49

¶50

the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs State of U P as being illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to take action^on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 11.02.2019^and to register FIR...”

¶51

Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication.

¶52

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the State is present.

¶53

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel^forthe petitioner, the Writ Petition is closed, as no further^{ordersarerequiredin} this matter. There shall be no orders as to costs

¶54

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶55

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT F^I^TRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶58

^ To,

¶59

M V PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

1. OneCCto SRI. J U

¶61

High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶62

1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME,

¶63

Three CD Copies

DPBR

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3085 of 2019

I 2 1 FEU M25 I
^ . Current Section

¶71

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

P Lakshmi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Lakshmi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tiruveedhula Sreenuvasulu, Vs a. Lalithamma

MD Ismail Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tiruveedhula Sreenuvasulu, Vs K. Nageswara Rao

M. Ravindranath Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Basina Veera Venkata Suryanarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Komatiguntla Jyothi Vs Komatiguntla Rueben Rao