Disposed

M/s Kovai Engineering Works a.P.(P) Ltd., v. The Superintendent of Police

Telangana HC2 Mar 2012WP/31355/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed for non-payment of machine bills thwarted by police investigation, the court directed the authorities to complete the pending criminal investigation within three months and ordered the petitioner to cooperate with the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete the criminal investigation within three months; direction to cooperate with the investigation.

M/s Kovai Engineering Works a.P.(P) Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31355 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under:

¶5

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not finalizing the issue regarding payment to the petitioner for the paddy threshers, groundnut threshers supplied to the farmers through third respondent Corporation and technical audit objections as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the authorities to make full and final payments for the paddy threshers groundnut threshers supplied to the farmers through third respondent Corporation and arrange for taking delivery of balance 50 paddy thresher machines while clearing the name of the petitioners from audit objections and the criminal case FIR.No.32 of 2009 of Anantapur Rural Police Station etc.”

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that it is a small-scale industrial unit engaged in manufacturing paddy threshers. In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though it has supplied such threshers to the third respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Industries Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad (Corporation), without any valid reason, the third respondent Corporation withheld the payments due to it.

¶7

On the complaint of the third respondent Corporation against A.1 to A.4 alleging that they have cheated the Corporation by claiming the bills without supplying the machinery, the second respondent – Station House Officer, Anantapur Rural Police Station, Anantapur, registered the same as a case in Crime No.32 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. A.1 to A.3 are the employees of the third respondent Corporation itself and A.4 is the petitioner Company.

¶8

When the matter was taken up on the last occasion, it was stated that investigation in Crime No.32 of 2009 is not completed due to non-cooperation of the petitioner, as such, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the second respondent. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner appeared before the second respondent. Further, he produced before this Court a letter addressed by the Inspector of Police, Anantapur II Town Police Station, in-charge of Anantapur Rural Police Station, to the Government Pleader for Home. In the said letter, it is stated that investigation is pending for examination of witnesses to ascertain the motive for the offence, as such,

¶9

further time of three months is required for completion of investigation and to file final report.

¶10

When it is the case of respondent 1 and 2 that the matter is pending investigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the investigating agency to complete the investigation in Crime No.32 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

In view of the said request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and as he is not pressing the relief sought in this Writ Petition, and as much as it is stated that the investigation in Crime No.32 of 2009 is pending and the Inspector of Police, Anantapur sought three (3) months time to complete the same, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 2 to complete the investigation in Crime No.32 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months from today.

¶12

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and it shall present before the police whenever its presence is required in connection with the investigation in Crime No.32 of 2009. No order as to costs.

¶13

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶14

2^nd MARCH, 2012.

¶15

Note: issue c.c. in one week.

¶16

kvni

M/s Kovai Engineering Works a.P.(P) Ltd., v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Kovai Engineering Works a.P.(P) Ltd., v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Timmiri Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkatachalam, Vs The Sub Inspector of Police, Lando, Suryaraopet

Vuppala Venkaiah, Vs The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise

P. Ganesh Kumar, Vs The Commissioner of Police

Samala Krishna Murthy Vs The Station House Officer

Angadi Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gollapalli Issac Vs The Station House officer,Kothapatnam Police station