Dismissed

Gogula Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC13 Mar 2012WP/6036/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismisses a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to act against alleged unlawful detainers. The court held the dispute to be civil in nature and, due to the official respondents' denial of receiving the complaint and lack of proof by the petitioners, dismissed the petition, directing the aggrieved parties to approach the competent court under Section 200 Cr

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' request for a mandamus directing the police to take action was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Gogula Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6036 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not taking action against respondents 4 to 7, pursuant to complaint, dated 21.02.2012 lodged by the first petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner lodged a complaint on 21.02.2012 before the third respondent – Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. A copy of such complaint is placed on record. In the said complaint, it is stated that petitioners 1 and 2 have obtained loans from the unofficial respondents to the tune of more than Rs.19,00,000/- from respondents 4 to 6, through one Krupa Rao of Mangalagiri. It is further stated that in consideration of the above loan amounts, the said Krupa Rao has kept his title deeds in respect of his two houses with respondents 4 to 6 and petitioners 1 and 2 have given signed blank promissory notes and cheques. It is further stated that the said documents are in possession of respondents 4 to 6 but they are not giving back the same to the petitioners and they are threatening

¶6

the petitioners with dire consequences. It is also stated that the petitioners are apprehending danger to their lives from the unofficial respondents.

¶7

When the matter came up on an earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 to obtain instructions. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that the police have not received any complaint, as alleged. The petitioners have also not produced any proof of filing such complaint. Further, from a perusal of the contents of complaint, dated 21.02.2012, it appears, the dispute between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents is purely civil in nature. In any event, if the petitioners feel that the unofficial respondents have committed cognizable offence, it is open to them to approach the competent Court by filing a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C. but they are not entitled to the relief as sought, more so, when it is denied by the official respondents that no such complaint is received by them.

¶8

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶9

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7670 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶10

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶11

13^th MARCH, 2012.

¶12

kvni

Gogula Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gogula Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

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

Bala Ananthamma, Vs The Director General of Police

Gunda Siva Kumar, Vs The Station House Officer

Md. Sirajuddin Vs The Superintendent of Police

Yanamadala Anil Chand , Chandu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koki Srinivasa Reddy Vs The Government of Ap., rep.byits Secretary,Home

Killada (Vanapalli) Susmitha Vs The Police Commissioner