Disposed

Pendyala Mary Rajeshwari v. The Suerintendent of Police, W.G.District, Eluru

Telangana HC12 Feb 2009WP/24888/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the petition without deciding merits. The Court directed police respondents to complete the investigation under Sections 419, 493, and 109 IPC if not already done.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to complete investigation, if not already completed, and take necessary steps strictly in accordance with law. No costs.

Pendyala Mary Rajeshwari Vs The Suerintendent of Police… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24888 of 2005

¶4

Between: Pendyala Mary Rajeshwari W/o.Late Calvin R/o.Buttaigudem village & Mandal W.G.District

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1 The Suerintendent of Police, W.G.District, Eluru

¶8

2 The Station House Officer, Buttaigudem P.S., Buttaigudem, W.G.District

¶9

3 Sariyam Durga S/o.Singaramma R/o.Mettagudem village, Buttaigudem Mandal, W.G.District

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order direction writ more particularly writ of Certiorari and declare the proceedings in Crime No.81 of 2005 on the file of the Butaigudem P.S. as illegal and quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.81 of 2005 on the file of Buttaigudem P.S. against the petitioner and to pass such further order or orders as are necessary in the interest of justice.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶16

WRIT PETITION No : 24888 of 2005

¶17

O R D E R :

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings in Crime No.81 of 2005 on the file of the Buttaigudem Police Station as arbitrary and illegal and to quash the said proceedings by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶19

Though the petitioner sought stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.81 of 2005, no such interim direction was granted by this Court.

¶20

Counter affidavit dated 29-11-2005 filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Buttaigudem Police Station, shows that the said crime was registered on 18-09-2005 under Sections 419, 493 and 109 IPC on a complaint lodged by the third respondent herein and the investigation is in progress.

¶21

Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 could state as to whether said investigation is completed as on today. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the investigation, if not already completed, and take the necessary steps strictly in accordance with law. No costs.

¶22

G. ROHINI, J

¶23

Dated: 12-02-2009 KLP

Pendyala Mary Rajeshwari v. The Suerintendent of Police, W.G.District, Eluru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pendyala Mary Rajeshwari v. The Suerintendent of Police, W.G.District, Eluru

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

Ch.Venkat Rami Reddy, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd./

The Imlibun Residents Welfare Society, Vs The District Collector

Seelam Srinivasa Chakravarthi, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation

Sathi Phalakshi Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradersh State Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh State Ware Housing Corporation and other Vs State Ware Housing Corporation A.P.

Agadallanka Water Users Association Vs The Executive Engineer