Dismissed

Kadingu Sattamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2021WP/1751/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 151 CPC seeking habeas corpus and protection from torture for her son and sons-in-law. The High Court held the petition was infructuous as the petitioner intended to pursue separate legal action against the offenders, leading to its dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous without costs.

Kadingu Sattamma Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1751 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kadinqu Sattamma, W/o. Krishnaiah,^{Age 65 years,Occ Agriculture.Rl/o.H.No.1-96,} G.YadZvally Village, Kanagal^{lr/andal, Nalgonda} District.

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda^{DistrictAt Nalgonda.} _

¶13

The Station House Officer, Kanag-l Police^{Station,At KanagalTown,Nalgonda} District

¶14

Smt.K.Sandhya, W/o.K.Gopala Swamy,^{Age 22 years, Occ Household'}

¶15

R/o.Kurrampdlly Village, Kanagal^{[V]andal, Nalgonda} O'ttr,",.

¶16

...*aTpONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedther€with, the High court may be pleasedto} issue a Writ or direction, more^{particularlyonein the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus} directing the official respondents^{more particularly respondentNo.3 to produce} petitioners son and sons-in-law before this Hon'ble Court and set them^{at liberty.} lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under section 151 cPC^{prayingthatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in suppo( of the^{petition, the High court may be pleased to directthe} respondents more^particularly respondent^{No.3 not to use third degree methodson} petitioners son and sons-in-law.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{VIJAY B. PAROPAKRI FOR}

¶20

SRI. BANDAMIDI SWAMY

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1^{to 3: AGP FORHOME FOR}

¶22

THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: NONEAPPEARED}

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶28

WRIT PETITTON No.175t of 2021

¶29

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

¶30

Heard. Perused the record.

¶31

The learned counser for the petitioner wourd submit that the subject matter of this writ petition has become infructuous and that therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous. He wourd arso submit that the petitioner intends to take steps in accordance with law against the offenders.

¶32

Under these circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition,

¶34

shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (t--

¶36

SECTIdN OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

One CC to Sri Bandamidi Swamy, Advocate IOPUC]

¶39

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad louTl

¶40

Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

Two CD Copies

CHR \

ry.

I.IIGH COURT

DATED:0510212021

ORDER

W.P.No.1751 of 2021

S rA
1 t1 o;
q
oo 12 tEB ?021 o
!
).^ a'
*

¶49

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

s5v .
l coP'e5
)n""-*'

Kadingu Sattamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadingu Sattamma v. The 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

Union of India and 2 others Vs Sri. Y.V.N Vara Prasada Rao

Union Of India And 3 Others Vs K.P. Johny

Chennupati Vijaya Rani Vs State of Telangana.

Vagalagani Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana

Nomula Somamma Vs The State of Telangana

Manesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others