Mohd. Abdul Raheem v. Moghalpura, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
writ petition is disposed of with the direction to him to file appropriate
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 91, 160
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120(B), 420
Judgment
Cause title
1 The Commissioner of Polcie, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Purani haveli, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, Moghalapura Police Station Moghalpura, Hyderabad. 4 Smt. Amtul Salma Begum W/o Mir Ali Mohammed Khan, 23-1-405, Jaffair Galli Hussaini Kothi, Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad. 5 Mujtaba Hussain Sajid S/o Jaffer Hussain Khan, 23-1-432/2, Jaffair Galli Hussaini Kothi, Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad. 6 Yaseen S/o not known to the petitioner (Police Department) R/o Hussaini Kothi Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad. 7 Md. Quader Baig S/o Md. Yousuf Baig R/o 17-3-137, Hussaini KothiRangili Khidki Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. VENKAT MAYUR FOR MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following :
ORDER:
Operative part
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the police to expedite the investigation into Crime No.99 of 2007 on the file of Moghalpura Police Station. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura Police Station, it is stated as under: Investigating Officer examined
I respectfully submit that pursuant to the registration of the above crime, complaint/petitioner and two other witnesses. The investigation so far done discloses that a civil suit is pending between the petitioner/complainant and the alleged accused persons. There is no evidence to prove the allegations of the petitioner in his private complaint so far. Though the investigation officer issued notices under Section 160/91 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner/complainant for submission of original documents the purpose of investigation, he did not co-operate with the investigation officer. However, he filed the instant writ petition to put pressure on the police to see that the accused are arrested. Investigation is pending. Necessary steps will be taken against the accused in the FIR depending on the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the course of investigation. I respectfully submit that almost all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are the subject matter of investigation in Cr.No.99 of 2007 U/Sec.120(B), 420 IPC for which a detailed investigation is going on. I assure this Hon’ble Court that I will take all possible steps in completing the investigation as expeditiously as possible and file an appropriate report/charge sheet at the earliest.
Having regard to the positive assurance given by respondent No.3 in the above-reproduced paragraphs in the counter affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to him to file appropriate report/charge sheet within four (4) weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already filed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.23570 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. 17th APRIL, 2008 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is disposed of with the direction to him to file appropriate
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 91, 160; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120(B), 420.
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.