Dismissed

Gopinath C v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Aug 2017WP/24136/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this single-judge order, the Hon'ble Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Mr. Ch. Gopinath seeking a declaration that the respondents' failure to address his representation on compounding criminal cases was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Court held that the police had no jurisdiction to act on such a proposal.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's request for a declaration and permanent settlement was not granted; the writ petition was dismissed.

Gopinath C Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 24136 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in not considering the representation dated 25.06.2017, made by the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

¶5

Before proceeding further, it would be useful to extract the representation dated 25.06.2017, which is as under:

¶6

“ To The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station.

¶7

Sub: Compromise proposal – Crime No.1022 of 2016 and Cr.No.207 of 2017 – Reg.

¶8

Ref: & Encl: Proposal letter received from the Accused in Crime NO.207 of 2017 & Crime No.1022 of 2016 – Enclosed.

¶9

Respected Sir,

¶10

Please find enclosed the proposal letter (Photocopy) received from the accused in Crime No.1022 of 2016 and Crime No.207 of 2017. Kindly inform me the scope of criminal cases compounding and the closure of proceeding further into civil trial and eventual settlement of the entire issue permanently. Thanking you, Sincerely,

¶11

Sd/ - Ch.Gopinath) Complainant in Crime No.207 of 2017”

¶12

This letter was addressed by one Ch.Gopinath, the petitioner herein, to the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station. It appears that the petitioner wanted information

¶13

¶14

relating to compounding of criminal cases, closure of the proceedings and eventual settlement of the entire issue permanently. The Station House Officer is not the person to answer these queries. The intention of the petitioner in asking the police to give an opinion as to the scope of criminal cases, whether they can be settled permanently appears to be quite strange.

¶15

A proposal, which was enclosed to the representation dated 25.06.2017, relates to some compromise in Crime No.1022 of 2016 and Crime No.207 of 2017, on payment of Rs.15.00 lakhs towards compensation to the petitioner by T.Nageswara Rao and T.Srinivasa Rao, in four equal instalments after withdrawal of criminal cases and also payment of Rs.10,00,000/ - by the petitioner to B.Krishna Murthy. As observed earlier, definitely these are not the issues which the police can act upon. The police have no jurisdiction or power to involve themselves in this issue. Hence, I see no merit in the request made by the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶19

01.08.2017 gkv

¶20

Gopinath C v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinath C v. State of Telangana

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

Smt. Uppalapati Ruppinamma W/o Gopala Krishna Vs The Revenue Dividional Officer

Garneni Murali Krishna Vs The Station House Officer Amaravathi Police Station

Vootukuri Hari Das Goud Vs State of Telangana

Sri Annamacharya College of Education, Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Thomas John, Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Mohd. Taqui , Baquar Hussain Vs The District Collector