SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(AP) 231

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
Koganti Lakshmi
Versus
The State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others
WRIT PETITION No. 4106 of 2010
DECIDED ON : 23-03-2010

ADVOCATES APPEARED:
For the petitioner:Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 to R4 - AGP for Home.

Headnote:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973—Sections 154 and 157—Power of Court to entrust investigation to CBCID — Failure of Police in registration of cases and making fair investigation—Police must investigate into offences and ensure prosecution of offenders in the most efficient and transparent manner— Faced with accusation made against local police, investigation of a criminal case must be entrusted to an independent agency like CBI or CBCID. (Paras 8, 15 and 17)

JUDGMENT :

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in investigating into burglary/robbery committed in the night of 15/16-11-2009 in Aabharan shop, bearing Door No.40-1-53B of Benz Circle, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to handover the case to an independent agency, like CBCID, for proper investigation.

2. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of the shop, by name, Aabharan, located in the above mentioned premises. The said premises was allegedly taken by the petitioner and their partners on lease under agreement, dated 1-7-2009, on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- from the GPA holders of original owners, by name, U.Aditya and U.S.Spandana, residents of USA. The petitioner specifically alleged that from the first week of November, 2009, the parents of the original owners of the said premises, by name, Smt.U.Nirupa Rani and her husband-Sri U.Venkata Sai Balaram, and their relatives Sri Koganti Ramakrishna and Sri Koganti Balakrishna have conspired together and started harassing and threatening the petitioner with dire consequences if she did not vacate the said premises. On 16-11-2009 when the petitioner, her partner-Smt.Panchakarla Devi Vanita and her husband went to the shop, to their shock, they have found removal of sign board and locks. The petitioner averred that during the early hours of 16-11-2009 the said Smt.U.Nirupa Rani, her husband and their relatives-Sri K.Ramakrishna and Sri K.Balakrishna along with their henchmen highhandedly and illegally broke open the locks of the shop illegally and looted the entire stock worth about Rs.10,00,000/-, cash of Rs.2,20,000/-, computers, credit card machines etc. The petitioner’s partner-Smt.Panchakarla Devi Vanitha and her husband gave a report to respondent No.4 on the same day; that while the report was not registered as a crime, the Court staff came and served a notice and a copy of the petition in I.A.No.641 of 2009 in O.S.No.1366 of 2009 on the husband of the petitioner’s partner; that on perusal of the said notice it has come to light that the shop owners, represented by their mother, filed O.S.No.1366 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for grant of permanent injunction against M/s. R & R Enterprises and got an exparte interim order on 13-11-2009. The petitioner pleaded that the said R & R Enterprises was earlier run by the husbands of the petitioner’s partners; that due to sustaining of losses they have closed the business; that the tenancy was concluded by the end of June, 2009; and that, thereafter, the petitioner and her partners have taken the said premises on lease and started Aabharan Fashion Imitation Jewellary shop. The petitioner further alleged that as respondent No.4 has not taken any action on her report, on 17-11-2009 the petitioner and her other partners sent a report, by registered post, to respondents 3 and 4. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioner and her partners are stated to have gone to the office of respondent No.3 and narrated the entire incident to him. As the said representation also did not yield any result, they submitted a representation on 21-11-2009 to the Honourable Minister for Home for taking necessary action in the matter by marking copies of the said representation to respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner specifically pleaded that she and her partners, apart from repeatedly requesting respondent No.4 to take action, were literally staying at the Police Station itself from 16-11-2009; and that after the petitioner and her partners sent their representation to Home Minister, respondent No.4 hurriedly registered the complaint on 21-11-2009 at 8-00 P.M., as crime No.586 of 2009 against Smt.Uppalapati Nirupama Rani, Sai Venkata Balaram, Ramakrishna and Balakrishna and others for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 427 and 506 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC., as if the repor























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top