Disposed

Inampudi Sandeep, v. The Station House Officer

Telangana HC8 Jul 2016WP/21984/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking direction to investigate the plea of alibi regarding the petitioner. The petitioner claimed a representation dated 03.05.2016 was sent but not considered. The court directed that if the representation was received, it must be considered; otherwise, the petitioner may make a fresh one.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the representation dated 03.05.2016 if received, or allow petitioner to make a fresh representation.

Inampudi Sandeep, Vs The Station House Officer — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 21984 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶5

The present Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

¶6

‘For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not intending to conduct investigation with regard to the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner in Crime No.30 of 2016 on the file of the Repalle Town Police Station, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to conduct scientific investigation with regard to the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner before filing the final report in Crime No.30 of 2016 in the interest of justice’.

¶7

Though various grounds are raised, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner himself has sent the representation dated 03.05.2016, by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural, requesting the authorities to investigate with reference to the plea of alibi. It is stated that though representation is received by them on 06.05.2016, till date the same is not considered.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Home states that if the representation is received, definitely it we will investigated in accordance with law.

¶9

Having regard to the above circumstances, if the respondents have received the representation dated 03.05.2016, sent by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. If no such representation is available, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed in the

¶12

light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶13

JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

08.07.2016, vhb

Inampudi Sandeep, v. The Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inampudi Sandeep, v. The Station House Officer

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

Javaji Narasaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Marathu Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal

Sri Y.S.P Murthy, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Md.Saleha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Vardenna Seshanna Vs The Principal Secretary (Home)