Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17362 (AP)

S.Munemma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/15553/2020 · 2025-09-10

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010236062020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 15553/2020 Between: 1. S.MUNEMMA, W/O. S.SIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.H.NO. 19-4-3/11, S T V NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI URBAN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517501., AADHAR NO. 955074101423. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMAVARATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, THIRUPATHI. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI URBAN DEPARTMENT, THIRUPATHI RULAR MANDAL, CHITTTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUCHANOOR POLICE STATION, TIRCHANOOR DISTRICT. 5. GANAPATHI NAIDU, SM. KRISHNAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, EX-SARPANCH, RM.D.NO. 1-3-4111/F, PADMAVATHIPURAM TIRUPATI RURAL, SWARNAMUKHI NAGAR, K.R.NAGAR, TANAPLLI ROAD,TIRUPATHI-517505. 6. GOPI CHOWDARY, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 32 YEARS, PJO.N.R.KAMMAPALE VILLAGE, RAMACHANDRA 2 PURAM MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. MALAPARAPU SRIRAMULU, SIO M.GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.19-46, CHAITANYAPURARN PUDIPATTALA, TIRUPATHI RURAL, THIRUPATHI- 517505. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 8. ANJANA, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O.SWARNAMUKHI NAGAR, K.R.NAGAR,TANAPLLI ROAD, THIRUPATHI-517505. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA RAO M R L Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 15553/2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 herein in conducting investigation in Crime No.624 of 2020 dated 16-08-2020 registered under Sec. 447, 427, 506 IPC r/w34 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) SC,ST (POA) Act 1989 on the file of the 4th respondent is not in accordance with law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to entrust the task of the investigation to any other agency and pass…” 2. None represented on behalf of the Petitioner. The proceeding sheet dated 02.09.2020, would also show that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the Writ Petition. 3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents is in attendance. 3. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for Non- prosecution. No order as to Costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.09.2025 UPS 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.15553 of 2020 Dated.11.09.2025 UPS 139