High Court for State of TelanganaWP/25299/2011dismissed

Kodavti Anitha, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2015-08-03Sanjay Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.25299 OF 2011 Between:

Kodavati Anitha .. Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, and others.

.. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 03-08-2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment?

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

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.25299 of 2011 ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioner in this case was that the police authorities were not finalizing the investigation in Crime No.22 of 2011 on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station, West Godavari District, and arresting the accused. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram Police Station, West Godavari District, filed a counter-affidavit stating that upon the private complaint lodged by the petitioner before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, which was forwarded to the police authorities, Crime No.22 of 2011 was registered under Section 354 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station. However, upon due investigation, the police found that the offence under Section 354 I.P.C.

was not established and further, the ingredients were not made out for prosecution under the other provision of law. Permission was therefore obtained from the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, under proceedings dated 13.08.2011 and a final report was filed referring the case as false. This final report was stated to have been filed on 26.08.2011 before the competent criminal court.

In the light of the afore-stated facts, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate measures in accordance with law if she is aggrieved by the conclusion arrived at by the police authorities.

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

____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 3rd August, 2015 IBL