Telangana High Court
WP/4126/2004 of Kaki Surya Satya Ramu, Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 23 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4126 OF 2004 DATED: 23RD DECEMBER, 2005 Between Kaki Surya Satya Ramu, S/o Subba Rao, … Petitioner and The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4126 OF 2004
DATED: 23[RD] DECEMBER, 2005
Between
Kaki Surya Satya Ramu, S/o Subba Rao,
and
The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari and another.
… Petitioner
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4126 OF 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner lodged a complaint on the file of the Court of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kovvur, under Sections 420, 403 and406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against one Vempati Veerendra. The petitioneralleged that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousandonly) for purchase of tractor-trailor under hire purchase agreement, but failed to paythe instalments. He also alleged that the accused sold away the tractor-trailor in theyear 2003 with dishonest intention to deprive the petitioner of his property. The samewas endorsed by the learned Magistrate where upon the second respondent registered the case being crime No.150 of 2003 and took up investigation.
The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that the second respondent did notinvestigate the crime and yielded to the influence of the accused. Therefore, he filedthe writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent in notproceeding with the investigation is illegal and arbitrary.
The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Nidadavole, filed counter affidavitopposing the writ petition. While denying the various petition allegations, it is statedthat after investigating the crime, the second respondent filed report under Section173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, referring to the complaint as of civilnature. In view of the counter averments stand admitted, it shall be open to thepetitioner to approach the learned Magistrate competent to take cognizance of theoffence and raise the objections. Insofar as the writ petition is concerned, the causeof action does not survive.
The writ petition, with the above observation, is dismissed. No costs.
______________
(V.V.S.RAO,J)
23.12.2005.
pln