K.C. Venkataramanaiah v. The Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH **** WRIT PETITION NO.28330 OF 2011 Between:

K.C. Venkataramanaiah .. Petitioner and The Superintendent of Police, Nellore District and others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCEMENT : 22nd JULY, SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3.

Whether Their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the judgment?

Yes/No THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28330 OF 2011

O R D E R

The grievance of the petitioner in this case was that the police authorities were not taking action on his complaint with regard to his missing buffalo. According to the petitioner, the said buffalo was in the custody of the seventh respondent and though the police authorities traced it out, they were not taking action to return the same. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vakadu Police Station, Nellore District, filed a counter-affidavit stating that upon the complaint made by the petitioner as to his buffalo going missing, Crime No.2 of 2011 was registered under Section 379 IPC on the file of Vakadu Police Station.

As the petitioner alleged that the seventh respondent had the custody of his buffalo, the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Mallam, Chittamuru Mandal, Nellore District, was asked to examine the buffalo in the custody of the seventh respondent to ascertain as to whether it was the petitioner's buffalo. However, the doctor, upon inspection of the seventh respondent's buffalo, issued letter dated 07.01.2011 stating that the said buffalo was not the buffalo of the petitioner. On the aforestated communication, the police proposed to file a final report before the competent criminal Court referring the case as 'mistake of fact'.

No reply was filed to the aforestated counter though the same was filed as long as back as on 28.10.2011.

In the light of the aforestated facts, it is clear that the complaint made by the petitioner was found to be without basis and the police authorities took a decision accordingly. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the final conclusion arrived at by the police authorities in relation to his complaint, it is for him to take appropriate measures in accordance with law.

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to do so, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 22nd JULY, 2015 Svv