Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2005
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 156(3), 200
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. Gaddam Swarupa Rani, W/o. Gaddam Narsaiah, R/o. Reddy Colony, Hanmakonda, Warangal District. AND ..... PETITIONER
1 The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Warangal. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS
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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus duly declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondent No. 1 herein in not investigating the Crime No. 325/2003, which was referred by the learned IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, at Warangal under sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., as highly arbitrary, illegal, unilateral and contrary to the code of Cr. P.C. and its provisions and consequently direct the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Dy. Superintendent of Police, Warangal, to investigate the said Crime in F.I.R.No. 325/2003 of P.S., Hanmakonda and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VINOD KUMAR DESHPANDE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following :
ORDER:.
Operative part
The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the complaint made under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, and though the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Warangal to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, wherein it was indicated that the investigation should be completed by 30th September 2003, the investigation is not conducted. The counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the total inaction on the part of the concerned Police Officer is reprehensible. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No counter affidavit has been filed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the specific averment made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that no investigation has been conducted and reported to the Magistrate so far, I deem it expedient, to direct the second respondent to complete the investigation, as directed by the Magistrate, if not already conducted, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ D.S.R. VARMA, J DATED: 04.03.2005 Ka Note:
Mark copy to the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.
Furnish copy in three days. To 1 The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Warangal. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Warangal.
2 CCs to G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT)
2 CD Copies.
The IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 156(3), 200.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 04 Mar 2005. The bench was D S R VARMA.
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.