Disposed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jan 2024WP/37616/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct police to register a case under Sections 193, 209, 465, 420 and 469 IPC on the petitioner's complaint. As no updated instructions or information were available after a lapse of a decade, the court closed the petition without costs, permitting a fresh complaint to the SHO.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without costs; liberty to file fresh complaint before the SHO, who shall act in accordance with law.

Karuturi Satyanarayana, S/o. Lakshminarayana, Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 37616 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

Karuturi Satyanarayana, S/o. Lakshminarayana, aged^{about65years,} Retd. Employee, C/o. V.V. Ramarao, KONTHAMURU, Rajahmundry Rural, E.G. District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its, PrI. Secretary (Home Department) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶13

SHO, Ill-Town Police Station, Rajahmundry.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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^{particularlyoneinthe} nature of Writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to take petitioner's complaint on record and to register a^{caseundersections193,} 209, 465, 420 and 469 etc. of I.P.C, which are cognizable^offencesand consequently arrest the accused therein and further^{investigateintothe} matter and take appropriate action under law

¶16

%^5*

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 46802 OF 2013)

¶18

P6tition und6f' Ssction 151 CPC praying that in th©^{circumstancss} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the 2rid respondent to take the petitioner's^complainton file and register a case under section 193,209.465^{and469etc.ofI.P.C.} and to arrest the accused.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SF!tl. M SIVANANDA KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following order:

¶22

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶23

Writ Petition No.37616 of 2013

¶24

ORDER:-

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶26

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶27

“....to issue the Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the 2"^ respondent to take petitioner’s complaint on record and to register a case under Sections 193, 209, 465, 420 and 469 etc of IPC which are cognizable offences and consequently arrest the accused therein and further investigate into the matter and take appropriate action under law....”

¶28

Sri N.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri M.Sivananda Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents are present.

¶29

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home failed to provide latest instructions to this Court with regard to whether^the police has registered the crime or not. Learned counsel^for the petitioner is also not in a position to provide any information to this Court about this matter, as the original counsel on record for the petitioner was passed away.

¶31

¶32

Upon perusal of the Writ affidavit, the issue involved in the writ petition is of the year 2013 i.e., after a lapse of decade, it is not proper to decide the matter in the absence of any information from both sides.

¶33

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Writ Petition is closed. If at all any grievance is still subsisting, the petitioner is directed to file fresh complaint before the concerned Station House Officer and on such receipt^ofthe complaint, the respondents are directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶34

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶36

any, shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/-SK MD RAFI ASSISTANTiREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTIOROFFICER

¶39

To.

¶40

One CC to Sri. M Sivananda Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶42

Two CD Copies JSS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 24/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.37616 of 2013

CLOSING THE W.P.

WITHOUT COSTS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Sri Krishna Talkies and 5 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Govt. of A.P. and 3 Ors.

Dr. Ponnuru Muralikrishna, Guntur District Vs Prl. Secretary, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Hyd and 4 Ot

M.Maheswar Reddy, Kurnool Vs Prl Secy, Home Dept, Ap, Hyd and 5 Others

Smt. Boddu Sumathi, Vs The Commissioner of Police; Vijayawada; Krishna dist

Illa Katam Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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