Allowed

P. Mallikarjuna Reddy v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC25 Jul 2018WP/23386/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench disposal addresses the petitioner's grievance regarding police inaction on a fresh complaint dated 05-05-2018 regarding an alleged cognizable offence and lack of protection against unofficial respondents. The court addresses the res judicata plea raised by the state regarding a prior writ petition on a similar complaint, distinguishing the two based on the new date of the complai

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent-police to take action on the petitioner's complaint dated 07-05-2018 in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.

P. Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs State of A.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

1HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.23386 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondentpolice are not taking action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 07-05-2018 and not registering the FIR and not protecting the petitioner from illegal acts of respondents 5 to 7 and their henchmen by providing protection.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner made complaint, which constitutes cognizable offence and the respondents have to take action in terms of Apex Court judgment in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh¹ . But the respondent-authorities are not taking action.

¶5

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home produced written instructions stating that as many as eight cases are registered against the petitioner and rowdy sheet was also opened against the petitioner on 28-05-2011 and earlier the petitioner filed complaint on 05-03-2018 and the same was also enquired into and the petitioner filed earlier WP.No.8104 of 2018 alleging inaction on the said complaint. As such, the present writ petition is hit by principles of resjudicata.

¶6

In this case, it is to be seen that earlier the petitioner was complaining about non-registration of crime dated 05-03-2018 and filed the above said writ petition and this Court granted interim order. Now the petitioner made complaint

¶7

1 (2014)2SCC1

¶8

¶9

on 07-05-2018 alleging that cognizable offence has been committed by the unofficial respondents. The said complaint of the petitioner was also received by the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati Urban District and the same was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahila Police Station, Tirupati on 19-05-2018 for enquiry and report. It is stated that report was also received on 18-05-2018.

¶10

It is to be seen that the Apex Court has issued guidelines in respect of registration of crimes that whenever complaints are filed, the concerned police have to take action on the same in terms of guidelines laid down in the Apex Court judgment of

¶11

Lalitha Kumari’s case cited supra.

¶12

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-police to take action on the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with guidelines laid down in Lalitha Kumari’s case cited supra. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶13

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

¶14

25-07-2018 Nvl

¶15

¶16

P. Mallikarjuna Reddy v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Mallikarjuna Reddy v. State of A.P.

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

Pavan Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Rajendra Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Jayamma, Vs The State of A.P.

Kuncham Mohan Rao Vs State of Telangana

Pp Company Vs M/S Bharat Pertoleum Corporation Ltd.,(Bpcl),Rep. by CHAIRAND2

M/s.Sri Sankara Residency Plot Owners Association Vs The State of Telangana