Allowed

Chilka Swamy v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC19 Mar 2012WP/6141/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandate to declare police inaction illegal, this court observed that registration of the crime and examination of witnesses indicated progress. The court directed the respondents to complete the investigation in Crime No.66 of 2012 and file a final report within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to complete the investigation in Crime No.66 of 2012 and file the final report within four weeks of the receipt of this order.

Chilka Swamy Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Police — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.6141 of 2012

¶3

Date: March 19, 2012

Between:

Chilka Swamy

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Division, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to

¶12

declare the action of the respondents in not investigating into Crime No.66 of 2012, dated 29.01.2012 on the file of Medipally Police Station, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that he and his family members are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.6.06 guntas in Sy.Nos.24, 28, 29 and 30 of Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distict, having inherited the same from their ancestors. It appears, petitioner has filed a complaint on 22.01.2012 before the 1^st respondent alleging that one Sri P. Bal Reddy and eight others have criminally trespassed into the said land, tried to evict him therefrom and also abused him the name of his caste. Thereupon a case in Cr.No.66 of 2012 was registered on 29.01.2012 on the file of Medipally Police Station for the offences under Section 447 and 427 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶14

It is the grievance of the petitioner that though crime was registered on 29.02.2012, no investigation is being done.

¶15

Based on the written instructions dated 17.03.2012 of the Inspector of Police, Medipally Police Station, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader

¶16

for Home appearing for respondents-Police that after the crime was registered, 8 witnesses were examined and except the petitioner/complainant, his wife, brother and sister-in-law, no other independent witness supported the version of the petitioner, investigation is in progress and will be completed as early as possible. It is further submitted that when the matter is pending, accused No.7 in the crime in question approached the Police and filed a complaint stating that he is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.3.04 guntas in Sy.Nos.24, 28, 29 and 30 at Boduppal village and the petitioner herein and others have criminally trespassed into the said land, damaged the rods (kaddies) with JCB vehicle bearing No.AP.20J.8837 and abused him. It is further submitted that basing on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No.76 of 2012 was registered against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 IPC and the matter is pending investigation. It is alleged that petitioner has approached this Court to avoid investigation in the said crime registered against him.

¶17

So far as Crime No.66 of 2012 is concerned, it is to be noticed that the same was registered only on 29.01.2012 and it is stated that 8 witnesses were already examined and investigation is in progress. Therefore, it cannot be said that no action has been taken by the

¶18

respondents-Police pursuant to registration of the crime. As much as it is stated that investigation will be completed in a short while,

¶19

I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to complete the investigation in Cr.No.66 of 2012 and file a final report as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶20

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)

¶22

March 19, 2012 MRR

Chilka Swamy v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilka Swamy v. The Assistant Commissioner 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

Smt.Mallidi Ashwini Vs The Government of Ap., rep by its Principal Secretary

Mohd. Abdul Ghani Quraishi Vs The Commissioner of Police

M/s.P.Anil Kumar, Vs The Manager

P.D.R. Rayalu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kovuru Seshaiah, Vs Superintendent of Police

The Toddy Tapers Cooperative Society, (License No.12), Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh