M. Vasantha, Wo. Late. M- Chandra Shekar v. Secretariat, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Having regard to the submissions, the aspect that the Sessions Case has been ended up in acquittal after due trial, the cause raised in the writ I ,_, ) petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, t re Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.…
Judgment
State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, 2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District, Telangana_ 4. The lnspector of Police, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, Telangana. 5. Mr. Anjaiah, Sub-lnspector of Police, P.S., Velgator, Karimnagar Dist. 6. Aluka Lachaiah, S/o. Aluka Odhelu, Aged about 50 Yrs, Occ Farmer. R/o. Amb_aripet Mllage, Velgatoor Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana Now residing at Paidipelli {V), Velgatoor Mandal, Karimnagar District, Tel-ngana. 7. Aluka Nagapalli, S/o. Aluka Lachaiah, Aged about 29 Yrs, Occ Farmer. R/o. Ambaripet Village, Velgatoor Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana Now residing at Paidipelli {V), Velgatoor Mandal, Karimnagar District, Tel-ngana. 8. Aluka Anji @ Alay, S/o. Aluka Lachaiah, Aged about 24 Yrs, Occ NlL. R/o. Ambaripet Village, Velgatoor Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana Now residing at Paidipelli {V), Velgatoor Mandal, Karimnagar District, TetAngana. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass a direction one in nature of writ of mandamus in declaring the aclion of Official Respondent No.
2 to 4 in not acting upon the representation dated 07-08-2016 and also not according Potice Protection to the life and limb of the Petitioner as violative of Article 14 and 21 of lndian Constitution as well as principles of natural lustice I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016{wPMP. NO: 40763 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor- r may be pteased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to register a Crime against R: ;pondent No. 5 to 8 for the offences under Sec. 195-A, 354-D, 506-ll & 509 ol Indian Penal Code, 1860 based upon the representation dated 07-082016 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. JAKKULA SRTDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI R. LAXMIKANTT REDDY, AGP FOR HOtlI : Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to8: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.32955 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief.
". . -lo pass a direction one in nature of 'Writ of Mandamus', in declaing the action of Official Respondent No 2 to 4 in not acting upon the representation dated 07.08.201 6 and also not according Police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner as violative of Ariicles 14 & 21 of lndian Constitutiort as well as principles of natural justice and pass such other or appropriate orders. ." , t
None appeared for the petitioner
t\4r. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4, would submit that basing on the representation, crime was registered, subsequently, a Sessions case was numbered vide S.C. No.412 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kariminagar, and after due trial, respondent Nos.6 to B/accused Nos. l to 3 were acquitted. Thus, the cause raised in this Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication
I have perused the materials on record
Having regard to the submissions, the aspect that the Sessions Case has been ended up in acquittal after due trial, the cause raised in the writ I ,_, ) petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, t re Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall s i nd closed Sd/-t SRINIVASA REDDY ASSiI ;TANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// \ .J becnoN oFFtcER To,
1. One CC to SRl. JAKKULA SRIDHAR, Advo-cate [OPU(] i on; aa io sni. x. RAJANNA, Advocate tqPqq-. 5. i;; ;6.i"-e p ion nor"rE ,nigtr Courrfor thsstate o Telangana at 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] B tvt ?t PMK HIGH COURT DATED: 1 I 10812025 ) ORDER WP.No.32955 of 2016 1,.. tA ' 5 tlEC 295 I .) l, !' :> t, ,,. 1, \.. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS \ A-- t$ t\ th
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 07 Aug 2016. The bench was N TUKARAMJI.
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.