N. Raghava Rao v. District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Dec 2004
- Bench
- L NARASIMHA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 2 to 4 shall not
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
N. Raghava Rao, S/o. Srinivas Rao, R/o. S-3, C-321, NGO's Colony, Vanasthalipuram, RR District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar Zone, Rangareddy District. 3 The Circle Inspector, LB Nagar P.S. LB Nagar, RR District. 4 The Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar P.S. Ranga Reddy District. .....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, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seeking to interfere with the civil disputes relating to the partnership firm viz., M/S. MITRA ASSOSCIATES, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's rights in the partnership firm in any manner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME The Court at the stage of admission made the following
ORDER:
Operative part
Petitioner states that he submitted two complaints against a firm M/s Mitra Associates, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy district and the said agency, in turn, filed two separate complaints against him. It is represented that in relation to the complaints submitted by M/s Mitra Associates, cases were registered, investigation was conducted and charge sheets were filed in the Courts concerned. The petitioner complains that despite the same, respondents 2 to 4 are pressurizing him to settle his disputes with the said agency and subjecting him to harassment. It is also stated that no further steps have been taken on the complaints submitted by him. He seeks appropriate directions from this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home. It is represented that in the two cases filed against the petitioner by M/s Mitra Associates, the respondents have undertaken investigation and filed charge sheets. If that be so, there does not exist any necessity for them to call the petitioner to police station. Further, once the cases are registered and charge sheets are filed, respondents 2 to 4 cannot interfere with the civil disputes, much less pressurize the petitioner. It is a different thing, if the petitioner is called to the police station for providing information in relation to the complaints submitted by him. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 2 to 4 shall not interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and M/s Mitra Associates nor shall they harass the petitioner in relation to the matters, which are already said to be pending before the Court concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. -----------------------
30.12.2004 Note: Issue CC tomorrow. (BO) To 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar Zone, Rangareddy District. 3 The Circle Inspector, LB Nagar P.S. LB Nagar, RR District. 4 The Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar P.S. Ranga Reddy District. 5 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT). 6 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 2 to 4 shall not
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Dec 2004. The bench was L NARASIMHA REDDY.
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.