Allowed

D.Suresh Chaithanya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Dec 2013WP/36440/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition challenging the non-transfer of an investigation involving allegations of torture, the High Court directed the Home Department to entrust the investigation to the Crime Branch of Crime Investigation Department due to conflict of interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 is directed to entrust the investigation into Crime No.91 of 2013 to the CBCID.

D.Suresh Chaithanya, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.36440 of 2013

¶2

Dated:20.12.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

D.Suresh Chaithanya, S/o Lat Ravi Kumar

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Govt of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and five others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Syed Khader Mastan

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3, in not considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 27.07.2013, for transferring the investigation into Crime No.91 of 2013 from respondent No.6-Police Station to the Crime Branch of Crime Investigation Department (for short ‘the CBCID’), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

The petitioner alleged that respondent No.5 has tortured him while he was in custody. The petitioner has filed an appropriate complaint against respondent No.5, which is registered as F.I.R.No.91 of 2013 on the file of respondent No.6-Police Station. He has further alleged

¶15

that when he approached respondent No.6 with a request to furnish a copy of the said FIR, the latter has warned him that one day or the other he will be killed in an encounter. The petitioner further alleged that respondent No.6 has questioned his courage to file a case against respondent No.5. With these allegations, the petitioner has made a representation on 27.07.2013 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for entrusting the case to the CBCID. As no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶16

On a careful consideration of the allegations made by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.6 cannot cause fair investigation as the complaint is filed against respondent No.5, who is holding a co-equal post with respondent No.6.

¶17

In the light of the above serious allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No.5, on which this Court refrains from expressing any opinion, though, it is desirable that the request of the petitioner for entrustment of investigation into Crime No.91 of 2013 on the file of respondent No.6-Polcie Station to the CBCID is accepted. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to entrust the investigation into Crime No.91 of 2013 on the file of respondent No.6-Police Station to the CBCID.

¶18

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.45285 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶20

20^th December, 2013 DR

D.Suresh Chaithanya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Suresh Chaithanya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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. Sri Ramagiri Constructions Private Limited Vs M/s. Galaxy Enterprises

G. Satyanarayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Srinivas Vs The Regional Transport Officer, Mahaboobnagar.

Sukka Sarvaiah Vs The State of A.P.

Sri S. Sanjeeva Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home

K.v.Rajesh, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh