Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J
CH ANURADHA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 3023/2019
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the authorities to register an FIR based on the complaint dated 01.12.2018, alleging cognizable offences, and to investigate the matter accordingly (!) .
The court observed that the petition had become infructuous, as there was no further adjudication possible on the matter, leading to the dismissal of the petition (!) .
The court dismissed the petition without costs, noting that the cause did not survive for further adjudication (!) .
The court reaffirmed that delay and inaction by police authorities in registering an FIR must adhere to the principles established regarding the circumstances under which an FIR must be registered, emphasizing the importance of timely registration under the relevant procedural provisions [judgement_subject].
The decision underscores that if a complaint involves cognizable offences, police authorities are mandated to register an FIR without delay, in accordance with the applicable legal framework [judgement_subject].
The petition was filed to seek a writ of mandamus to compel registration and investigation, but the court found that the petitioner’s cause no longer required adjudication, resulting in the petition being dismissed as infructuous (!) .
Let me know if you need further assistance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition found infructuous; no further adjudication possible. (Para 2) |
| 2. court's decision to dismiss petition. (Para 3) |
| 3. conclusion leading to no costs being ordered. (Para 4) |
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“….to issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the delay and inaction on the part of the respondent No. 3 in registering the F.I.R. on the complaint dated 01.12.2018 submitted by the petitioner, though the same attracts cognizable offences, as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of Section 154 of Cr.P.C., as envisaged by the Honble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case 2014 (2) SCC 1 and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to register an F.I.R. on the complaint dated 01.12.2018 lodged by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.4 to 14 for the offences under Sections 182, 386, 389 and 120B of I.P.C. and investigate the same by taking appropriate action against the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 and pass…”
2. Learned counsel representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication, and the Writ Petition has become infructuous.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is in attendance.
4. Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
