Disposed

Naveetha v. The Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC8 Mar 2010WP/5220/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected a writ petition seeking mandatory arrest directions against deleted accused. The court held the writ was not the appropriate remedy; the petitioner could file a protest petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate regarding the exclusion of accused from the charge sheet. The interim application was disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file a protest petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Naveetha Vs The Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶4

Writ Petition No.5220 of 2010

Between:

Smt.Naveetha

..... Petitioner

AND 1.The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad and another.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Prasanna Kumar

¶11

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Home

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

Order:

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2, in not arresting accused Nos.5 to 9 in Crime No.534 of 2009 of Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to arrest them.

¶15

I have heard Sri T.Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, representing the respondents.

¶16

On the complaint given by the petitioner against her husband and 8 others, respondent No.2- Station House Officer registered Crime No.534 of 2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 498-A, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and filed chargesheet on 11-10-2009 before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that without any reasons, whatsoever, respondent No.2 has deleted the names of accused Nos.5 to 9 from the said charge sheet. In my opinion, the Writ Petition is not an appropriate remedy as the petitioner is entitled to file a protest petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate against exclusion of accused Nos.5 to 9 from the abovesaid Crime.

¶17

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the above remedy.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6722 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 8^th March, 2010 lur

Naveetha v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveetha v. The Commissioner of Police

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

Diddi Nagaraju, Vs The Commissioner , Prohibition and Excise

Mohd.Shareef Vs Ap State Housing Corporation Ltd., Govt of Ap.

Vikasa Bhaarati High School, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Syed Ali , Munaser Vs Government of A.P.

M/s.SRee Balaji Cement Limited, rep.by its Prop. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Hindu College of Education, Vs The Acharya Nagarjuna University, represented by its