Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39748 (AP)

K.Krishnamachari, v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/47167/2018 · 2025-08-11

B V L N Chakravarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010981172018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 47167/2018 Between: 1. K.KRISHNAMACHARI,, S/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O R.S.ROAD, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AT KURNOOL. 3. THE DEPUTY SUEPRINTENDENT OF POLICE, DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DHONE POLICE STATION, DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THOTA GOPINATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.47167 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not registering the FIR basing on the petitioner's report inspite of the directions given by the 2nd respondent vide C.No.2580/GD /SP- Camp/2018, dated 29.10.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently direct the 4th respondent to register the FIR, investigate into the offences and file charge sheet and pass …” 2. Learned counsel representing Sri Thota Gopinath, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication, and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State is in attendance. 4. Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 12.08.2025 Pmk 3 38 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No:47167 OF 2018 Date: 12.08.2025 Pmk