Telangana High Court
WP/23587/2004 of Vallakatla Veeraiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23587 of 2004 Between: Vallakatla Veeraiah, s/o Pochaiah, r/o Metpally Village,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 23587 of 2004
Between:
Vallakatla Veeraiah, s/o Pochaiah, r/o Metpally Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar.
2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.
3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.
4 Badugu Janardhan, s/o Shekaraiah,
r/o c/o Vigneshwara Rice Mill, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.
5 Badugu Damodar, s/o Shekaraiah,
r/o Amudalpally Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. Karimnagar District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a direction, writ or order, one in the nature of Mandamus: a) declaring theaction of the respondent Nos.1-3 herein in not giving protection to the petitioner's lifeby discharging their duties properly entrusted to them legally as there is threat to thepetitioner's life from the respondent Nos.4 and 5, as arbitrary and illegal; b) directingthe respondent Nos.1 to 3 to give protection to the petitioner's life; c) granting allconsequential benefits; d) awarding costs to the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME
The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
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 grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 2 and 3 are not takingany action on the complaint submitted by him. It is stated that he filed O.S.No.43 of2003 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, against respondents 4 and 5, inrelation to a property, and obtained an order of temporary injunction in I.A.No.73 of2003. Alleging that the respondents 4 and 5 have demolished the wall, in violation ofthe order of injunction, the petitioner submitted a complaint, apart from initiatingproceedings under Rule 2-A of Order 39 C.P.C. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit is filed stating that Crime No.225 of 2004 was registered onthe basis of a reference made by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate,Huzurabad, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and as many as 5 witnesses, includingthe complainant have been examined therein, and that further steps would be takenin accordance with law.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forHome.
The dispute between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the respondents, on theother, is already the subject matter of a suit. They are required to act in accordancewith the orders passed by the civil Court, in that suit. The petitioner submitted acomplaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the concerned criminal Court, and on a reference made by it, the respondents 2 and 3 have registered a crime. Theinvestigation is said to be in progress. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said thatrespondents 2 and 3 remained indifferent.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing the respondents 2 and 3, totake further steps in the complaint, and to ensure that the orders passed by the civilCourt are not violated. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dt.28-12-2004
KO
To
1 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar.
2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.
3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.
4. 2 CCs to G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.
5. 2 C.D. copies.