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

2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22527

APHC010553722024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368]

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 28968/2024 Between:

1. KADIAM NAGENDRA VISHNU PRASAD, S/O.

ACHARUYALU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, H.NO.5-91/3, BALLAGAU CENTRU, MUMMIDIVARAM VILLAGE MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P.

2. ACHARUYALU,, S/O. VEERABHADRUDU, AGED ABOUT

74 YEARS, H.NO.5-91/3, BALLAGAU CENTRU, MUMMIDIVARAM VILLAGE MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P., ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AMALAPURAM, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P., 3. THE CIRCLEINSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUMMIDIVARAM, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUMMIDIVARAM, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDALAM DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P.

5. KADIAM VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. SRI RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. MUMMIDIVARAM VILLAGE, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P., 6. KADIAM RATNAKUMARI, W/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. MUMNNIDIVARAM VILLAGE MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P.

7. KADIAM SRINIVAS, S/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. MUMMIDIVARAM VILLAGE MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P., 8. KADIAM ASHAJYOTH, D/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. MUMMIDIVARAM VILLAGE MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P., 9. BONTHU NAGARAJU, S/O. VERRIYYA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. AINAPURAM VILLAGE, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT, A.P., ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. RAJU GUBBALA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 28968 of 2024

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

“…to issue to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action on my complaint dated 12.11.2024 respectively as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, high handed, against to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and consequently direct the 5th respondent to register F.I.R on my Complaint dated 12.11.2024 and take appropriate action in accordance with law in the interest of justice and pass…”

2. Heard Sri Raju Gubbala, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader for Home on written instructions would submit that police conducted preliminary enquiry on the report of the petitioner and found that it is a civil dispute and therefore they did not interfere in the matter and the petitioner sent a representation to Superintendent of Police, with the same allegations.

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.Subramaniam Vs. S.Janaki and another1, held that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

2020 (16) SCC 728.

5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission without going into the merits of the case, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate for necessary relief by filing a private complaint as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and in view of the judgment referred above.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________________ ___

JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

24.12.2024.

Pmk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO:28968 of 2024 Date:24.12.2024 Pmk

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