WP/23911/2000 of MOHD.SHAFIUDDIN HYDANDANR Vs A.P.TRANSCO ITS SEC HYDANDANR on 6 December 2000

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

W.P. No. 23911 of 2010

Oral order:

M/s. Noble Enterprises, represented by its partner, states that heis the owner of the land in an extent of As.135.52 cents of land indifferent survey numbers situated at Sudhanagar, Parigi GramPanchayat, Hindupur, having purchased the same under registereddocument dated 17.12.2007 from M/s. Rassai Properties andIndustries Limited, who in fact, purchased the same from M/s. NizamSugars Limited, and that since the date of purchase he is inpossession and enjoyment of the same. While so, he states that about15 days back and on 20.09.2010 and 23.09.2010, some personsclaiming to be ex-employees of M/s. Nizam Sugars Limited along withanti-social elements, attacked their security men and staff, demolishedthe security room and compound wall and also prevented hisemployees from entering into the premises. And that even though, helodged complaints dated 20.09.2010 and 23.09.2010 and also sent thesame by way of registered post, requesting the respondents to takeaction against the culprits and provide police protection, no actionthereon had been taken. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writpetition to take appropriate action against the culprits and providepolice protection to their property and persons.

Respondent No.2 filed counter. As the counter filed by him didnot property explain the reasons for not registering any crime and nottaking any action on the complaints of the petitioner, this Court directedhis appearance along with the record on 08.10.2010. As directed,respondent No.2 appeared before the Court along with the record, andsubmitted that upon receipt of the complaints, he made entry in theGeneral Diary, but he was unable to give any reason why he has nottaken action on the complaint, even though the complaints disclosedcommission of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. He,however, agreed to take action on the complaints given by thepetitioner. On 01.11.2010, when the matter was taken up, the learnedGovernment Pleader for Home submitted that FIR was registered. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuantto registration of the FIR no action was taken. On 08.11.2010, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructionssubmitted that some of the accused in the crime were arrested, but therequest of the petitioner for removal of gates cannot be provided. However, as it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the respondents have not provided police protection, this Courtdirected respondent No.1, namely the Superintendent of Police,Anantapur, to examine the whole issue and file a detailed counteraffidavit.

As directed by this Court, respondent No.1 filed counter statingthat he summoned respondent No.2 and that after examining therecords he found that based on the complaint of the petitioner, a casein Crime No. 74 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections143, 447, 427, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC was registered on the file of ParigiPolice Station on 15.10.2010, and that respondent No.2 during thecourse of investigation, examined as many as six witnesses, andarrested A2, A5, A6, A7, A9, A10 and A11 on 07.11.2010 andproduced them before the Magistrate concerned, who remanded themin judicial custody, and that A1, A3, A4, A8 and A12 are yet to bearrested and that they are making their all out efforts to arrest them. That he has also instructed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,Penukonda, to enquire into the non-registration of the complaintlodged by the petitioner and submit report. That he has also instructedrespondent No.2 to complete the investigation and file appropriatereport before the Magistrate concerned and also provide necessarypolice protection to the petitioner as and when sought for by them, andassured the Court that he will monitor the investigation of the case.

Conclusion

Since the respondents have taken action on the complaint ofthe petitioner, as is evident from the averments made by respondentNo.1 in the counter, which are extracted above, no further orders needbe passed in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.

Dated: 25[th] November, 2010KSR

_________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.