Nuna Rupa Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jan 2024WP/31333/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 challenging the police registration of criminal cases and alleged interference in a property dispute. Upon perusal of the respondents' written instructions clarifying that only criminal cases were registered and no civil dispute interference occurred, the Court found no cause to adjudicate and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.

Nuna Rupa Kumar Vs The State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 31333 OF 2014

Between:

...PETITIONER

AND

The Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶10

Idcd M'"spector of Police, Vakadu Circle SPSR Nellore District. Police Station, Vakadu mandal.

¶11

kota village and Mandal

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

esipisii With .he possession ^ ^

¶14

LA. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 39161 OF ?nid|

¶15

in the aS filelT^n's^poVon^ circumstances stated enio.n.en. 0. .h-; p.p:V.orel:y3“.ra::

¶16

'''"^9® ®"« Mandal. SPSR Nellore District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: NONE APPEARED

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE DRJUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶22

Writ Petition No.31333 of 2014

¶23

ORDER:-

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶25

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶26

"... to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate^writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents^3and4 in interfering with civil disputes of the property to an extent of admeasuring Ac.0.49 cents or 2372 Sq yards of land comprised in Sy.No.l249 of Kota village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, with instance of the 5^'' respondent as illegal, arbitrary^{andunconstitutional} and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the above property and pass and to pass such other order or orders...."

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent^Nos.lto4. None appeared for respondent No.5.

¶28

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 submits a copy of written instructions. As per the written instructions, it is stated that, the above writ petition^hasbeenfiled by the petitioner herein seeking to declare the action of the respondents 3 and 4 Police in interfering with the civil dispute in respect of the property in Sy.No. 1249, situated at Kota, Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal. The facts^ofthecaseare

¶29

¶30

that, the 5th respondent herein has lodged a complaint on 04.08.2014 with the Station House Officer, Kota Police Station, Nellore District, stating that, on 30.07.2014 the petitioner^herein trespassed into his property in Sy.No. 1249, situated at Kota, Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and damaged the trees,^sothe complainant/5th respondent requested the police to take necessary action. It is stated that, basing on that complaint^{acaseinCr.No.} 135/2014 U/s. 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 IPC has been registered^on 04.08.2014 against the petitioner herein and another on the file of Kota Police Station and investigation has taken up by the SubInspector of Police by examining the complainant and^2witnesses. Basing on the evidence adduced during the course of investigationit was revealed that, the complainant lodged false allegations against the accused person/petitioner herein. It is stated that, when Crime No.135/2014 was under progress, the petitioner herein also lodged a complaint on 12.08.2014 with this respondent police station, stating that, on 10.08.2014 the petitioner herein trespassed^intoher house under Sy.No. 1249, situated at Kota, Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and changed the feature of the boundaries of the said land by threatening with dire consequences, so the petitioner requested the police to take necessary action against

¶31

¶32

the 5th respondent. It is further stated that, basing on that complaint a case in Crime No.145/2014 U/s. 447, 448, 506 r/w. 34 IPC has been registered on 12.08.2014 against the respondent and another on the file of Kota Police Station and investigation has taken up by the Sub-Inspector of Police by examining the complainant and 3 witnesses. Basing on the evidence^adduced during the course of investigation it was revealed that, the complainant lodged false allegations against the accused person/S'^*’ respondent herein. It is further stated that, in both^the cases investigation almost all completed. After obtaining opinion from the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor the cases will be finalized and appropriate reports will be submitted before the^Concerned Magistrate at the earliest in accordance with law. It is stated that. except registering the above two criminal cases against the petitioner as well as 5^^ respondent, the respondents police have never interfered with the civil dispute between the petitioner and 5‘h respondent with regard to the above said property at any point of time. Mere registration of the above criminal cases^does not amount interference of the police. It is stated that,^{thecontentionof} the petitioner that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 Police have interfered with civil dispute in respect of the property^betweenthe

¶33

-N

¶34

¶35

petitioner and respondent/Tupili Udya Bhaskar Reddy in Sy.No.l249, situated at Kota, Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is incorrect, baseless and far from truth. As stated above, the respondents 3 and 4 Police have never harassed, threatened^and interfered with civil dispute in respect of the property,^betweenthe petitioner and 5th respondent/Tupili Udya Bhaskar Reddy in Sy.No. 1249, situated at Kota, Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore^Districtat any point of time.

¶36

In view of the above and on perusal, this Court is^oftheview that the cause in the present Writ Petition does not^survive to adjudicate in this matter and deems fit to close this^{WritPetition.}

¶37

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall^beno order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶39

stand closed.

¶40

SD/- M. PADMALATHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

To, 1. One CC to SRI. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies Madhu MBT

¶43

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DATED: 11/01/2024
.,v '•'fix

¶46

ORDER

¶47

WP.No.31333 of 2014

¶48

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

■lV
o
mm 20^'' m;

Nuna Rupa Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nuna Rupa Kumar v. The State 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

R.R.Socio-Cultural Associaation, Rep. by President, Vs Prl.Secy., Home Deptd., Hyd., and 3 Others

Satyanarayana Kalamandir Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Shaik Adil Hasan S/o. Late Shaik Jamal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sandepogu Mareppa Vs The Government of A.P

G.Lokanadha Reddy, Vs The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh

Vidavalapati Malyadri Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh