Sri Akula Ranga Rao v. Buildings, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V ESWARAIAH
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 190, 200
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the fact that PRC.No.105 of 2005 in C.C.SR.No.5590 of 2005 in Cr.No.482 of 2002 is pending on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, the petitioner is not entitled to prosecute parallel proceedings; more so when the prayer in…
Judgment
Cause title
Sri Akula Ranga Rao, S/o. Late Sri. A. Subba Rao, R/o. 32-7-17-A, Ratcha Banda Street, Rajahmundry. ... PETITIONER
AND 1 State of A.P. Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, E.G. District at Kakinada. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajahmundry. 4 I Town P.S. rep. by its Station House Officer, Rajahmundry. 5 Sri Arava Sarveswara Rao, S/o. A. Narasimha Murthy, R/o. Mummidivari Street, Rajahmundry. ...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particular one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to direct the CB-CID to enquire into the representation dt. 9-10-2003 submitted by the petitioner and take necessary action by declaring that the stand taken by them is arbitrary, illegal, capricious, high handed and violate all cannons of law and justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to punish the 5th respondent and his men for their illegal activities and also to provide police protection to the petitioner and his property and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.S.ANAND Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR. V.S.N. SARMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 7512 of 2007 Between: Sri Akula Ranga Rao S/o. Late Sri A. Subba Rao R/o. 32-7-17-A, Ratcha Banda Street, Rajahmundry. ... PETITIONER
AND 1 State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, E.G. District, Kakinada. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajahmundry. 4 I Town P.S. Rep. by its Station House Officer, Rajahmundry. 5 Sri Arava Sarveswara Rao S/o. A. Narasimha Murthy R/o. Door No. 12-80, Mummidivari Street, Rajahmundry. ...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in investigating and bringing the culprits to book as arbitrary, illegal capricious, high handed and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 and punish the 5th Respondent and his men for their illegal activities and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.S.ANAND Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the CB-CID to enquire into the representation dated 09.10.2003 submitted by him and take necessary action and to punish the fifth respondent in accordance with law and also to declare the inaction of the respondents in investigating and bringing the culprits to book as arbitrary and illegal.
Learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that, in fact, the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry for the same cause of action seeking similar relief as claimed in these writ petitions to direct the CBCID to enquire into the representation of the petitioner dated
09.10.2003. He further submits that the petitioner also disclosed about the filing of the writ petition and the counter filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed on 18.12.2003 and the same was filed into the Court on 06.12.2004 after service of notice on the complainant on 02.12.2004 referring the case as false.
In view of the fact that PRC.No.105 of 2005 in C.C.SR.No.5590 of 2005 in Cr.No.482 of 2002 is pending on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, the petitioner is not entitled to prosecute parallel proceedings; more so when the prayer in the writ petition to direct the CBCID to enquire into his representation dated 09.10.2003 was also questioned before the Criminal Court, I am of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 2, 2008 DSK ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J
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.