B. Venkateswara Reddy v. Station, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Between: B. Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, R/o. H.No. 40-814-7B, Srinivas Nagar, Kurnool - 518 004. ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. 2 M.v. Ramarao, S/o. not known to the petitioner, Chief Sub-Editor, Online News Agency, C/o. Andhra Jyothi Main Office, Plot No. 76, HUDA Heights, Ashwini Enclave, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT
S Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any action against the 2nd respondent pursuant to the representation dt. 7-8-2008 submitted by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to enquire into the matter and take action against the 2nd respondent for misrepresentation and playing fraud on the Government. Counsel HANUMANT HA RAYUDU t he Pet it ioner: MR.CHIL AMKURI Counsel for t he Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME T he Court made t he following : T HE HON’BL E Ms. JUST ICE G. ROHINI WRIT PET IT ION No. 20735 of 2008
O R D E R:
Operative part
The petitioner herein stated to have made a representation before the first respondent on 07-08-2008 making certain allegations against second respondent and requesting to take appropriate action by registering a criminal case for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Alleging that the first respondent failed to take any action, the present writ petition has been filed. Even assuming that the first respondent failed to consider the representation/complaint made by the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to work out the other alternative remedies as available under the Code of Criminal Procedure and without exhausting such remedies, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 20-10-2008 KL P
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
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.