Ponupu Sriramulu @ Ramu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PONUPU SRIRAMULU @ RAMU, S/O PONUPU BALA SW A MY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O FLAT NO. 205, V.C. ENCLAVE, V.R.COL O NY, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DI S TRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A N DHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS P RINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOM E DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VEL A GAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUN T UR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE SUPERINTEN D ENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, K URNOOL DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DEPUTY S U PERINTENDENT OF POLICE, K URNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRIC T .

¶15

THE STATION HO U SE OFFICER, IV TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL, KURNO O L DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayin g that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appro p riate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of M a ndamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 herein in investigatin g into FIR No.32/2018 for the offence U /Sec. 147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC though the said case is registered on 2 6-10-2018 as being illegal, arbitrary, u njust and unconstitutional and conseq u ently direct

¶18

2

¶19

the 4th respondent to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, and to grant

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

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 GRANT STAY of dispossession of the petitioners from their lands in sy.No.134-4 extent Ac.4-20 cents, sy.No. 62-3 extent Ac. 3-52 cents, sy.No. 62-4 Extent Ac. 1-02 cents, Sy.No. 62-2 Extent Ac 1-30 cents, sy.No. 62-5 extent Ac.1-80 cents, sy.No. 63-1A extent Ac. 3-68 cents, sy.No 68-3 extent Ac. 2-20 cents, sy.No. 116-3 Extent Ac. 1-38 cents, sy'No' 116/2A Extent Ac. 5-00 cents, sy.No. 133 Extent Ac. 5-02 cents, sy.No.5/481D extent Ac. 5-37 cents, sy.No. 2/4B Extent Ac. 3.27 cents, and sy.No.3/64 extent Ac. 5.86 cents situated at raduvai Viilage, rangareddy Gudem Mandal, west Godavari District pending disposal of above writ petition and pass.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.A SUNITHA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.3830 OF 2018

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

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

¶32

“…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 herein in investigating into FIR No.32/2018 for the offence U/Sec. 147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC though the said case is registered on 26-10-2018 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 4th respondent to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, and to grant and pass …”

¶33

No representation for the writ petitioner. Earlier also there was no representation for the writ petitioner.

¶34

Sri R. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the police completed the investigation in Crime No. 32 of 2018 and laid a charge sheet vide P.R.C. No. 2 of 2022, which was committed to the Sessions Court vide S.C. No. 75 of 2022 on 09.06.2022. The same is pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, for framing of charges.

¶35

This Writ Petition was filed alleging that the police not evincing interest and not conducting the investigation in the above case.

¶36

Now, the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the police have

¶37

4

¶38

completed the investigation, laid the charge sheet, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court and is also under trial. Hence, no further orders are required in this Writ Petition, and the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶39

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be

¶40

no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶42

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶43

12.02.2026 PNS

Ponupu Sriramulu @ Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponupu Sriramulu @ Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Lakshmi Prasanna Vs the State of Ap

V Sujatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.v.Sitaramaraju Vs The Station House Officer

Aripikatla Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Naidu Sivaram Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D. Iqbal Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh