Allowed

Balusu Lakshmana Ramesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC3 Nov 2017WP/36799/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging non-registration of an FIR, the High Court directed respondent police officers to verify the petitioner's complaint and register an FIR if a cognizable offence was disclosed, then proceed with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 to 6 directed to verify complaint and register FIR if cognizable offence disclosed and investigate.

Balusu Lakshmana Ramesh, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.36799 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 6 in not registering the FIR on petitioner’s complaint dated 10.10.2017, against un-official respondents 7 to 9, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 6 to register FIR and conduct investigation.

¶5

The petitioner’s case is that he filed O.S.No. 168 of 2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, against unofficial respondents 7 to 9. In I.A.No. 825 of 2017, the trial Court after full fledged enquiry granted interim injunction in favour of petitioner and against respondents 7 to 9 in its order dated 18.9.2017 and the said order is in force. Despite the same, the unofficial respondents 7 to 9 are meddling with the property highhandedly and they are threatening the petitioner and his farm servants that they would grab the landed property by ousting him from possession. Aggrieved, the petitioner gave a complaint to the SHO, Tadikalapudi Police Station, West Godavari District on 10.10.2017, but the police have not taken any action so far.

¶6

¶7

UDPR,J W.P.NO. 36799 OF 2017

¶8

It is seen that as per the order in I.A No. 825 of 2017 in O.S.No. 168 of 2017, a copy of which is filed along with the material papers, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and against unofficial respondents 7 to 9 and it is stated to be in force.

¶9

In that view of the matter, respondents 2 to 6 are directed to verify the complaint of the petitioner stated to be presented in the Police Station of Tadikalapudi and register the FIR, if it discloses a cognizable offence, and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.

¶10

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel there to, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶12

Date: 03.11.2017 KA

Balusu Lakshmana Ramesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balusu Lakshmana Ramesh, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gunnabathula Venkata Lakshmi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Suptd.Engineer,E.P.D.Comp.Ltd.and Anr. Vs D.Ramesh Udc

Pandeti Siddi Raju Vs Raghavaraju Prabhavathi

Mamidi Pothuraju S/o Late Appa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principle

Jogi Venkateswara Rao Vs Jampana Ranga Rao [died]

Gudepu Balaiah, Vs The State of Telangana