NO WRIT IF POLICE FAILED TO REGISTER A CASE = In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, the Writ Petition is not maintainable, questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the crime against the petitioner. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and file a private complaint against the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 .

NO WRIT IF POLICE FAILED TO REGISTER A CASE = In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janaki and another, the Writ Petition is not maintainable, questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the crime against the petitioner. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and file a private complaint against the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 .

AP HIGH COURT

Main NumberWP 13946/2020SR NumberWPSR 17239/2020
PetitionerOmmi Satya DeviRespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh
Petitioner AdvocateCH B R P SEKHARRespondent AdvocateGP FOR HOME

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.13946 OF 2020

ORDER:-

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India, to declare the action of respondents in not providing police

protection to petitioner inspite of her representation dated

03.07.2020, as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondent

authorities to provide protection to her life and also provide police

aid to construct her house in plot bearing No.940 situated in

Sy.No.285, 286 and 287 of Gollapalli Village, Bobbili Mandal,

Vizianagaram District.

2. Though the petitioner made several allegations questioning

the inaction of the respondent-police despite lodging of complaint

dated 03-07-2020 and on subsequent dates about the alleged

interference with the property of petitioner by the private

respondents 5 to 7, it is clear from the material on record that the

respondents 5 to 7 are making attempts to interfere with the

possession and enjoyment of the property of this petitioner during

night time and the petitioner raised walls upto basement level and

respondents threatened to kill her, if she completes construction

work. The alleged threat to kill petitioner would attract a

cognizable offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860. But the police did not register any crime,

despite disclosing the factum of commission of cognizable offence

in the complaint itself. Thus, the respondent No.4 failed to

discharge his public duty. 

2

3. In view of the Judgment in the case of M.Subramaniam and

another Vs. S. Janaki and another (Criminal Appeal No.102 of

2011 dated 20-03-2020), the Writ Petition is not maintainable,

questioning the inaction of the respondents in not registering the

crime against the petitioner.

4. Therefore, the remedy opened to the petitioner is to follow

the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 and file a private complaint against the unofficial

respondents 5 to 7 and this Court cannot issue a direction by way

of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India in

view of law laid down in M.Subramaniam’s case (referred supra).

Hence, the petitioner is permitted to follow the procedure

prescribed under law and lodge appropriate private complaint

before the jurisdictional Magistrate, while dismissing the petition,

at the stage of admission itself, in view of law laid down by this

Court in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch dated 30-07-2020.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this writ petition,

shall stand closed.

 _________________________________________

 JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date : 24-08-2020

ARR

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.13946 OF 2020

Date : 24-08-2020

ARR