R. Andalamma v. Tappachabutra, P.S. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Oct 2004
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 21, 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 154(3)
Judgment
Cause title
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19356 of 2004 Between: R. Andalamma W/o R. Satyanarayana R/o 13-6-449/6, Saingar, Beyond, Gudimalkapur Market, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Station House Officer, Tappachabutra P.S., Hyderabad 2 Kum Sarita W/o Sri Ramulu Tappachabutra, P.S. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad .....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 any Writ or Writs more particularly one Mandamus declaring the 1st respondent’s inaction in registering FIR against 2nd respondent under relevant section of IPC or any other law in force as arbitrary illegal, and violating of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take immediate action against 2nd respondent by taking necessary steps in this regard including her apprehension and production before competent court as per law. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.A.SRIGANESH Counsel for Respondent No.1 : G.P. FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.2 : None appeared The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
ORDER:
The only grievance of the petitioner is that though she lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Tappachabutra Police Station on 6.10.2004 complaining about the unlawful activities of Respondent No.2 and requested to take immediate action, the respondent No.1 failed to take any action. Hence this writ petition seeking a declaration that the alleged inaction on the part of respondent No.1 is arbitrary and illegal. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and on perusal of the record, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy as available under Section 154(3) of Criminal Procedure Code by sending the substance of the complaint in writing to the concerned Superintendent of Police, in which event, the same shall be considered by the concerned Superintendent of Police in accordance with law. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI, J Date: 26.10.2004 NOTE: C.C. IN (2) DAYS B/O DA To 1 The Station House Officer, Tappachabutra P.S., Hyderabad. 2 Two CCs to the G.P. for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 3 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 21, 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 154(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Oct 2004. The bench was G ROHINI.
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.