Dismissed

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

Telangana HC16 Mar 2012WP/6424/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the police's failure to arrest absconding accused in a dowry harassment case. The court, noting that witnesses were examined and the accused's names deleted due to lack of evidence, directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file a final report within four weeks before dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Dir. Investigating officer to complete investigation and file final report within four weeks; WP disposed of.

Smt.Mallidi Ashwini Vs The Government of Ap., rep by its… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6424 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent – Station House Officer, Anaparthi Police Station, East Godavari District, in not arresting respondents 4 and 5, who are absconding, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the third respondent to implement their arrest and to file final report.

¶5

On 14.12.2011, petitioner lodged a complaint before the third respondent stating that her marriage was performed on 11.02.2005 with Sri Mallidi Dharma Reddy and thereafter, her husband and in-laws have harassed her for additional dowry and thereby, she requested to take action. Based upon the same, a case in Crime No.195 of 2011 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

¶6

Prohibition Act, against six accused.

¶7

During the course of arguments, it is submitted that accused No.1 was arrested in connection with the above said crime and was released on bail and so far as accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 are concerned, they have filed Criminal Petition No.206 of 2012 seeking to quash the said crime and this Court disposed of the same on 05.01.2012 directing the police to complete the investigation without arresting them.

¶8

In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that she lodged complaint as early as on 14.12.2011, no investigation is being made and accused Nos.4 and 6, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, are not being arrested. When the matter is taken up today, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that in the aforesaid crime, during the course of investigation, about nine witnesses were examined and their statements have been recorded. It is also submitted that as there was no evidence against respondents 4 and 5, who are accused Nos.4 and 6, their names were deleted from the First Information Report and after completion of investigation,

¶9

the police would take steps for filing final report against other accused.

¶10

In view of submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that as there is no evidence against respondents 4 and 6, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, their names were deleted from the First Information Report, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

¶11

Be that as it may, as it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that during the course of investigation, about nine witnesses were examined and their statements have been recorded, I deem it appropriate to direct the investigating officer to complete the investigation in the aforesaid crime and to file appropriate final report, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from today.

¶12

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, it is open to her to pursue any other remedy as available under law. No order as to costs.

¶13

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8156 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶14

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶15

16^th MARCH, 2012.

¶16

kvni

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Mallidi Ashwini v. The Government of Ap., 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

Smt. Jasthi Aruna, Vs The Revenue Divisonal officer

Kothapalli Srihari Raju Vs The Commissioner of Police

Shaik Younus Vs Station House Officer, P.S., Narsapur, Medak District

Mohd. Abdul Ghani Quraishi Vs The Commissioner of Police

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

K.Santosh , K.Santosh Goud, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited