Writ petition filed to quash a crime number was disposed of as infructuous after a final report under Section 173 CrPC was filed by the investigating officer reporting the case as a mistake of fact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN
PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16398 of 2009
Between: Roddam Mohsina & others.
… Petitioners
And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Dept., of Home, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N. Aswartha Narayana
Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16398 of 2009
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed to quash Crime No.116 of 2009 registered against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 by respondent No.3’s police station.
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that after completion of the investigation, a final report was filed by the investigating officer reporting the case as “mistake of fact” in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur.
In view of the above submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.21549 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed.
_____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Date: 08.06.2010 ES
Roddam Mohsina & others
The Govt., of A.P.
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
