T. Ramalingam, Karimnagar Dt. v. Station House Officer, Karimnagar Dt. And 3 Ot

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12118 of 2013 ORDER:

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2.

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:- "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not taking any action on petitioner's complaint against the culprits as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of Natural justice, consequently direct the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 to hold the crime file for the purpose of investigation after registration of crime and to pass..."

3.

Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended inter alia that as per the request of the petitioner in his complaint, respondent No.1 summoned his daughter and Mr.Sadanandam and enquired the matter thoroughly with them. They stated that they are living as wife and husband and they did not take any money or any utensils including gold from the house of the petitioner. Since the contents of the complaint are proved to be false and baseless as elicited in the course of preliminary enquiry, the 1st respondent did not initiate any action on the complaint, dated 14.03.2013, of the petitioner herein. On further enquiries, it was revealed that the petitioner is not satisfied and he is unhappy on his daughter marrying Mr.Sadanandam. It is also further stated that the

petitioner has not impleaded his daughter and Mr.Sadanandam as party respondents for the reasons best known to him. If they are made parties to the writ petition the real facts would come to light. In fact, the daughter of the petitioner Smt.Jayalaxmi lodged a complaint on 14.03.2013 with the Manthani Police Station, Karimnagar District, seeking police protection from her parents as her life is in danger in the hands of her father, mother and brother. To wreck vengeance against his daughter, the petitioner submitted a false complaint with respondent police. Hence, no action was taken. 4.

In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs.

___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 8th November 2019 mar