Allowed

Dr. G. Venugopal Rao v. Meda Lakshmi Kiran , Kiranmye

Telangana HC27 Aug 2015WA/1142/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and a Justice disposed of an appeal filed by the father of a deceased against an order allowing a re-post-mortem. The court allowed withdrawal of the underlying writ petition and directed police to take steps under Section 156(3) CrPC without examining the merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; police directed to take further steps under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Dr. G. Venugopal Rao Vs Meda Lakshmi… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

W.A.No.1142 OF 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶4

Heard Mr.Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1.

¶5

This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.08.2014 passed in W.P.No.14613 of 2014 filed by respondent No.1. In the writ petition, she had prayed for re-post-mortem on her daughter’s body who died unnatural death on 11.02.2014. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.

¶6

The appeal is by the 7^th respondent in the writ petition who is the husband of the 1^st respondent and the father of deceased-Krishna Priya.

¶7

We have heard the appeal for some time. In the course of hearing, Mr.D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition bearing W.P.No.14613 of 2014 and sought direction to the police to take further steps on the basis of the order dated 31.01.2015, passed by learned Magistrate in the private complaint filed by respondent No.1, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr.Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has no objection for allowing respondent No.1 to withdraw the writ petition. He, however, sought direction to the police to take further steps strictly in accordance with law. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this appeal by the following order.

¶8

“The writ petition (W.P.No.14613 of 2014) is dismissed as withdrawn. The concerned police station shall take further steps in pursuance of the order dated 31.01.2015 passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the private complaint filed by

¶9

respondent No.1 dated 10.10.2014 strictly in accordance with law. While passing this order, we shall not be understood to have examined merits of the case. No costs”.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶11

_____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ___________________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 27.08.2015 Stp/Lrkm

Dr. G. Venugopal Rao v. Meda Lakshmi Kiran , Kiranmye

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. G. Venugopal Rao v. Meda Lakshmi Kiran , Kiranmye

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

Sri Dhanalakshmi Educational Society, having its office a Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its

S.R. D.Ed. College, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

vallabhu Sriramulu, Vs The Bantumulli Pa.C.S

T. Venkat Rao, Vs The Government of Telangana

S. Ravi Shankar, Vs K. Ramachandra Reddy (died) per LRs

K.Rama Krishna, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary