Writ petition challenging registration of criminal case alleging money distribution to voters. Court held that since elections concluded and a stay exists on the related criminal case, no further orders are necessary.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 5927 of 2009
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in registering Crime No.33 of 2009 against the petitioners under Section 110(e)(g) of Cr.P.C.
3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that they received reliable information that in the elections that were held in 2009, the petitioners were going to distribute money to the voters; and in order to prevent the same a suo motu case was registered against the petitioners on 12.03.2009 and a report was filed before the Mandal Executive Magistrate at Yemmiganur on 12.03.2009 praying him to execute bonds.
4. Now the elections are over and in view of the stay granted by this Court on 08.04.2009 in Crime No.33 of 2009, no further orders are necessary in the present writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
12th December, 2014 KSM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the registration of a case under Section 110(e)(g) Cr.P.C. for distributing money to voters requires further adjudication after elections are over.
Whether a stay granted by this Court on the related criminal case renders the present writ petition infructuous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
2nd Respondent
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
