Kairamkonda Ganesh v. The Station House Officer, Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
No.1 in registenng the FIR in pursuant to the complaint dated 8.6.2017 made by the petitioner against the respondents 5 to 12 for the offence u/s u/s 323, 341, 384, 506. 120-B IPC r/w 34 IPC even though the contents of the complaint clearly disclose the commassion of cognizable offences as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to section 154 Cr.P.C. and consequently direct the respondents to register FIR against respondents 5 to '12 based on the complaint dated 8.6.2017 made by the petitioner for the offence u/s 323, 341 , 384, 506, 120-8 IPC r/w 34 IPC and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law in the interest of justice l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 24770 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents tc) conduct investigation in pursuant to the complaint dated 8.6.2017 made by the petitioner by registering the FIR against the respondents 5 lo 12 for the offence u/s 323, 341, 384, 506, 120-8 IPC r/w 34 IPC pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of .justice Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: DUWA PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 12:-- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.20219 OF 2017
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "...fo issue a writ or order more pafticula y one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the delay and inaction on the paft of the respondent No 1 in registering the FIR in pursuant to the complaint dated 08.06.2017 made by the petitioner against the respondents 5 to 12 for the offence u/s.323, 341, 384, 506, 1208 IPC r/w 34 IPC even though the contents of the complaint clearly dlsc/ose the commission of cognizable offences as arbitrary illegal and contrary to section 154 Cr.P.C and consequently duect the respondents to register FIR against respondents 5 to 12 based on the complaint dated 08.06.2017 made by the petitioner for the offence u/s.323, 341, 384, 506 ,1208 IPC r/w 34 IPC and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law in the interest of justrbe...- "
2. Heard Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No,1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition as infructuous.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader takes no objection to the same. l -
Operative part
5. Recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to Itrliscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// -cp
One CC to Sri P. Nagendra Reddv, Advocate^lOfUQl- i. i;; ccsio 3 oi,;"bdi; S,:, bLiuua Pavan Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPtes Hvderabad [OUT] for liome, High Cburt for the State of Telangana' at To, TJ TKS P,.tq HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 ORDER WP.No.20219 of 2017 SIA C) (_) 2 I JAt{ 202[ * DTa t',ij' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS 3) lq. (r>{r!'
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 154; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.