Partly allowed

Maddu Siva Kumari, v. The station House Officer

Telangana HC7 Mar 2012WP/5456/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Station House Officer's failure to investigate a registered criminal case regarding property trespass. The court held that investigation had commenced and directed the officer to complete it within two months.

What did the court decide?

Director the 1st respondent to complete investigation within two months and take further steps in accordance with law.

Maddu Siva Kumari, Vs The station House Officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.5456 of 2012

¶3

Date: March 7, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Maddu Siva Kumari

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Station House Officer, Piduguralla P.S., Guntur District and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent, Station House

¶12

Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, Guntur District, in not taking further steps in Cr.No.264/2011 on his file as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the leaseholder of an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.892/38, since the year 1994, wherein she had set up a petrol bunk and conducted business for some time, but upon termination of her dealership by the Indian Oil Corporation, she has approached various forums and now the matter is pending before the Arbitrator. It is stated that the entire paraphernalia, viz., tanks etc., were not removed from the said land.

¶14

It appears, petitioner lodged a complaint dated 13.09.2011 before the 1^st respondent stating that 2^nd respondent herein, along with his henchmen, has trespassed into the aforesaid property and removed the underground diesel tanks and demolished office room and requested to take necessary action. Basing on the same, a case in Cr.No.264/2011 was registered on the file of the 1^st respondent on 13.09.2011 against respondents 2 to 5 herein under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though crime is registered, the same is not being investigated into by the 1^st respondent.

¶15

Based on the written instructions obtained from the 1^st respondent, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 1^st respondent that investigation has reveled that there is a dispute with regard to the property in question vide O.S.No.509 of 1999 before the High Court of Madras. It is further submitted that, in the crime in question, so far four witnesses have been examined and their detailed statements recorded; the matter is under investigation and after completion of investigation, the case will be finalized at the earliest.

¶16

As much as it is clear from the instructions obtained from the 1^st respondent that already four witnesses have been examined and investigation is under progress, it cannot be said that no action has been taken by the 1^st respondent pursuant to registration of the crime in question.

¶17

In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 1^st respondent to complete the investigation with regard to the crime in question as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order and take further steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶18

(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)

¶19

March 7, 2012 MRR

Maddu Siva Kumari, v. The station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddu Siva Kumari, v. The station House Officer

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

M/s. Kedia Distilleries, Rudrur village, Nizamabad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Principal Secretary

P. Ramakrishna Reddy, Vs The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise

Padakandla Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Shaik Aaisha Begum Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. S.N. Padmini Vs The Director General Police

J. Saradamba Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Police