Dismissed

M.Anjani Priyadarshini, W/o.Pagadala Katama Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC27 Apr 2017WA/609/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice held that writ appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are not maintainable against the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appeals despite the absence of notice to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals fail and are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, are also dismissed. No order as to costs.

M.Anjani Priyadarshini, W/o.Pagadala… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶3

Writ Appeal Nos.609 and 610 of 2017

¶4

Common Judgment: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶5

These appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are preferred against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge directing the official respondents to complete the investigation and to file a final report in accordance with law and without arresting the respondents-writ petitioners. The appellant herein is the 3^rd respondent in the writ petitions and is the complainant in FIR No. 177 of 2016. It is her grievance that the orders under appeal were passed even without putting her on notice and without giving her an opportunity of being heard.

¶6

While the submission urged by Sri D. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be said to be without merit, the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana¹ , has held that an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is not maintainable against the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge. We must therefore, express our inability to entertain these appeals. However, as held by the Supreme Court in Rama Krishna Fouji¹ , the appellant is entitled to avail such other remedies as are available to her under law.

¶7

Subject to the above observations, the writ appeals fail and they are, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶9

_____________________________ (Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J)

¶10

27^th April, 2017

¶11

pnb

¶12

1 Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4288 of 2017 dated 21.3.2017

¶13

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶14

AND

¶15

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶16

Writ Appeal Nos.609 and 610 of 2017

¶17

Date: 27.4.2017

¶18

pnb

M.Anjani Priyadarshini, W/o.Pagadala Katama Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Anjani Priyadarshini, W/o.Pagadala Katama Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L. Mahender Vs Apsrtc

N.Laxmi Kantam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Ramky Infrastructure Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh Road Development Corporation

The Depot Manager, Vs Sri M.L.Ali

Vice Chancellor, Vs Ms. P.Mounika

M.Anjani Priyadarshini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary