Dismissed

Hari Diwakaran v. The Superintendent of Police

Telangana HC25 Mar 2014WP/17222/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a school against criminal charges for injury to a student. The court accepted the respondent’s counter-affidavit stating that investigation found no evidence against the petitioner, leading to a false complaint finding and filing of a final report.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Hari Diwakaran Vs The Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

W.P.NO.17222 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 02. The 3^rd respondent’s daughter was studying in the petitioner’s Akshara Public School. On 09-03-2009 while she was studying, she sustained injury to her left eye. It was an unfortunate incident occurred during the course of imparting education. But on the complaint of the 3^rd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, West Godavari District, a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.27 of 2010 under Sections 341, 506(II) read with 34 IPC. The

¶5

3^rd respondent also issued the legal notice on 28-012010. Even after four (4) months, the police did not file charge sheet nor final report before the court. In those circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.

¶6

03. The 2^nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that on the complaint of the 3^rd respondent on 08-03-2010 with Undrajapuram Police Station stating that on 08-03-2010 when she was travelling on a two wheeler, two unidentified persons accosted her and threatened her to withdraw the criminal complaint said to have been filed by her against the petitioner and requested the police to take necessary action as per law. Based on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No.27 of 2010 was registered under Sections 341, 506(2) read with 34 IPC. The petitioner is the sole accused in the said crime and investigation was completed. As there was no evidence adduced during the course of investigation showing the involvement of the petitioner, the complaint

¶7

of the 3^rd respondent was referred as false. A final report was also filed before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku. In view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶8

_________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J 25-03-2014 TSNR

Hari Diwakaran v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Diwakaran v. The Superintendent 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

Dr. R. Surender Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Gandhipuram IV Block Members Welfare Vs The Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry

Smt Ponnapalli Seetharatnam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Sri Krovi Hari Krishna, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

V. Venkata Srinivasa Raju , Vasu Raju, Vs The Director General and Inspector General of Police

M/s.Tirumala Binni Rcie Mill, Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P.Ltd.