Smt. D. Bharathi Bai v. The Station House Officer, Santosh Nagar P.S. Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Recorcling the submissiofls of both learncci r ;urscl, thr: writ petitlon is dismissed as infruct-rous. 'lhere shail i t no order as to Misccllaneous I)ctitions, pcnding if anr, shail r uncl closc,l //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.I.S. GOWRI SHANKAR A; iISTANT RJSISTRAR L-' SECTION OFFICER…
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. D. Bharathi Bai, W/o late Laxmanji, 65 years, Housewife, H.No. 18-1- 337142, Arundathi Colony, Opp. Noor Masjid, Uppuguda, Hyderabad Telangana ...PETITIONER
AND
2. J.
4. q The Station House Officer, Santosh Nagar P.S. Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Santoshnagar Division, South Zone, Hyderabad, Telangana The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad D. Narasing Rao, S/o Laxmanji Aged 42 years, Business, H.No. 1B-1-337142, Arundathi Colony, Opp. Noor lvlasjid, Uppuguda, Hyderabad Telangana .,,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia, declaring the action of the '1't respondent, in not registering FIR u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. against the party respondent and taking further according to law in pursuance of the representation Dated 13.01 .2018 filed by petitioner, contrary to the law laid down in case of Lalitha Kumari V State of Uttar Pradesh in WP No. 68/2008 Dated 12.11.2013, as arbitrary, illegal, malafide, discriminatory violating Article '14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and issue consequential directions, directing the 1st respondent to register FIR u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. against the party respondent in pursuance of the representation Dated 13.01 .2018 filed by petitioner and take further action according to law, as per the law laid down in :ase of Lalitha Kumari V State of Uttar Pradesh in WP No. 68/2008 Dated 12.1' . lrl13, in protecting the life and property of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in th e circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cr r( may be pteased to direct the 1"t respondent, to take action against the part5 e;spondent uls 154 of Cr.P.C in pursuance of the representation Dated 1l )1.2018 filed by the petitioner, and take further action according to law, pencir gy disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. A. PREM CHAND Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI D. PRADEE r .AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5:- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON OURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PET ITIO No.2286 oF 2018
ORD ER:
'l'tris \\;tit l)etinon is hlcd under '\rticlc 226 of (lonstiturion of India scckrng thc foliowing relicF/s: ".. .to issui: a rvrit, or Clr or direction, nlorc irr rhe narurc t'f s rit crf mandarrtus undct :\rticlc 226 ol the C<lrlsrirution o[ India' daal^rurg tltc actiot.t r,I t]re 1sr rr-sp()o'Jent, in nt't rcqtsrcring I-ilR ,2. f Si o l' Cr.P.C againsr thc Pari!- rcspondent and taking ;rr,;'r., ,., 1.',rdir:g rr' lit itr pursuancc trf the reprcscntaii'-'n I-).Lred i3.rll.20'lii i,te.i br i,"ori, rn"r, contrtn to thc.law laid dc-,w-n i:. crs! ()[ La[th.'1 Kunlari V St;rtc t'f Urtar Pradesh in VI] No. (,8r'2tii)u L)atccl 11.i1.:013, as arbirrarl', illcgal' malafide' t ' viola'ing \r'.iclc 14 ancl 21 of the Consitution of dir, rri,r",,^ Incha ar:c issue consequentiai dtcctions, directrng rhe 1st resporrclcnt io regislcr F-Ilt tr,/s 154 oI Cr'P C against parry' rc, spo,r.ierrt i. pui's,-,4..e oI thc reprcsentauon L)ated 13 i)1 201ti frt"l tx p.tr:i,-er r;acl iake ttnhcr acuon accotding to law' as f", ,l't" i".." lrril clou n in casc of Latitha I(umari V State of Unar 'Pr^,,I".t r- i{? No. 68/'200tl Dated 1 2 i 1'2t'13' in protectrng thc lifc :rncl i-r.t, rperq' oI rhc pctrtioncr, ancl pass " " -the ",
I {card tr1r.I).r\.l)rcm ( lhancl, Iearncd couflsel for the petitiorrcr antl N[r.D Praclecp, Icanlcd Assistanr Govcrnment l)leader lor I{omc appcarioq ft;r tespondent Nos'1 to'l i. Lcarneil c()unscl frrr thc llctitioner submrts that the cause o[ longer sun'ivcs for actron ln tire present lvttt pcutr()n n() adiudication and, theretbre, sccks dismissal of fic wlt Peoooo as infrucruous
Learncd Assistant Govcrnment Pleadcr raisr s no ob jcctron t<t drc said submrssir-,n.
Recorcling the submissiofls of both learncci r ;urscl, thr: writ petitlon is dismissed as infruct-rous. 'lhere shail i t no order as to Misccllaneous I)ctitions, pcnding if anr, shail r uncl closc,l //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.I.S. GOWRI SHANKAR A; iISTANT RJSISTRAR L-' SECTION OFFICER ,1 . One CC to SRI D. A. PREI!,I CHAND, Advocate IOPU: I 2. fwo CCs to GP for HOME, High Court for the State o 1:langana. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies \ \ To B IM/MP. 0- HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 ORDER WP.No.2286 of ZOIB :rlllES (J I 1 ,] 1lr * ( |( irr.r -- t qI: o DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS o 0 *
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.