Disposed

Smt.Kottaraju Annapurna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Apr 2024WP/9938/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking a direction to register a complaint alleging failure of police action was disposed of in terms of an earlier High Court order holding such writs not maintainable, with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed in terms of the order dated 07.03.2024 in W.P.No.35174 of 2017; petitioner free to proceed in accordance with law.

Smt.Kottaraju Annapurna, Vs The State of Andhra… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

' \

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL

¶6

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 9938 OF 2017

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. Kottaraju Annapurna, W/o.K.Pydiraju, Aged 37years R/o.Appannadorapalem Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram^District.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Kothavalasa P.S., Kothavalasa Vizianagaram District.

¶17

Kottaraju Pydiraju, S/o.Simhachalam Dora, Aged 44 years. Reserve Inspector of Police, III APSP Battalion, APSP, Kakinada,^EastGodavari District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the

¶20

be pleased toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to register the complaint dated 09.01.2017 in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017rWPMP. NO: 12319 OF 2017)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to register the complaint dated 9-12017 in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure code, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. G RAMA GOPAL

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents R1 to R3: GP FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent R4: SRI. T V SRI DEVI

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

{ {

¶28

APHC010140112017

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶30

[3310]

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

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

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 9938/2017

¶36

Between:

¶37

Smt.kottaraju Annapurna,

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1.G RAMAGOPAL

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶45

2.5682/TV SRI DEVI

¶46

The Court made the following Order:

¶47

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶48

India for the following relief;

¶49

‘‘...to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly^oneinthe nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^ Respondent to register the complaint dated 09.01.2017 in accordance with the provisions^ofCriminal Procedure Code...”

¶50

¶51

Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel appearing^for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents.

¶52

On hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by an order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024.

¶53

In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of the above said order in Writ Petition No.35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024. However, if at all any grievance is still subsisting, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed.

¶55

Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition No.35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024, to this Order.

¶56

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To.

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶61

The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram^District.

¶62

The Station House Officer, Kothavalasa P.S., Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.

¶63

Kottaraju Pydiraju, S/o.Simhachalam Dora, Aged 44 years. Reserve Inspector of Police, III APSP Battalion, APSP, Kakinada,^EastGodavari District.

¶64

'5. One CC to SRI. G Rama Gopal Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

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

¶66

One CC to SRI. T V SRI DEVI Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Three Cd Copies

¶68

(Along with the copy of the order dated 07.03.2024 in W.P. No. 35174 of 2017)

GSC

PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.9938 of 2017

X-
2 2 NOV 202'»
^ . Current Section

DISPOSING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS

.APHC0108SS0S2O17

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

¶80

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH 1 3310 J TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶81

PRESENT

¶82

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶83

WRIT PETITION NO: 35174 OF dim <7

¶84

Between:

¶85

Rayavarapu Srinivasulu, S/o. Hariprasad Rao, AND OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶86

...PETITIONER(S)

¶87

... RESPONDENT(S)

¶88

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. N V R AMARNATH

¶89

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶90

GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶91

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶92

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring the action of the 3--d respondent in not registering the FIR basing on the complaints made by the petitioner dated 05.10.2017, 09.10.2017 and 16.10.2017, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the resident of Srinagar, Guntur Town and by running a cloth shop at 12/1 of Arundalpet and caking his livelihood, One person namely Kotireddy is known to the petitioner and he introduced the 4th respondent and he came to his shop regularly and informed that he ISi constructing the apartments at Ponnuru and he is' giving partnership in the said apartment and obtained Rs.26,50,000/- Due to illegal acts of the 4th respondent the petitioner made a complaint before the Ponnur P.S. and the Ponnur Police informed that the said complaint is not come under their jurisdiction to file a complaint before

¶93

the S'-d respondent and on 9.10.2017 the petitioner made another complaint before the respondent but the 3'‘‘^ respondent has not taken any action so far. Later, the petitioner made another complaint before the 2"^ respondent complaining the acts ofhteSerd respondent. But in vain. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶94

None appeared for the petitioner.

¶95

Heard Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶96

On perusing the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it ISi observed that, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents NO.2 and 3 to register the crime against the respondent No.4, they have not taken action so far. 6. On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home while relying on the decisions of this Court passed in W.P.No. 14324 of 2020 & batch, W.P. No.8384 of 2020 & batch and also a decision of a Division Bench this Court passed in W.A.No.l04 of 2022, submits that, in the above judgments it was held that the writ petitions, in view of the availability of efficacious and alternative remedy, were not maintainable and directed the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy. if they were so advised. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prayed^to dismiss the writ petition and issue a direction to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

¶97

In a case of Lalita Kumari V. State of Uttar Pradesh i, wherein the Apex Court held that a duty is caste upon the concerned police to register FIR and investigate the same if the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The truancy exhibited by the respondent police necessitated them to seek writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra^andthe same has been well settled as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this High Court. Now it is well settled law that when police failed to register the F.I.R. based on the report lodged by any individual disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.

¶98

Considering the earlier judgments of the Apex Court rendered on the same issue, this Court in a batch of writ petitions, disposed of on 30.07.2020 in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch, held that when police failed to register F.I.R. based on the report lodged with them, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable.

¶99

AIR 2012 sc 1515 + MANU/SC/0I57/2012

¶100

In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari’s case (supra 1) and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶101

In view of the above legal position, this Court ISi not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶102

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy provided in Cr.P.C., if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶103

dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶104

Gvl

¶105

Smt.Kottaraju Annapurna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kottaraju Annapurna, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katakam Satyanarayana, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Palla Parvathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Circar Jute Mills (P) Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R. Narayana Swamy, Vs The Director General of Police

P.Liyakhat Ali Khan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Parvathini Narsimha Rao, E.G.Dist., and 2 Otrs. Vs State of a.P.,Home,Hyd.,and 2 Otrs.