Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4964 (AP)

Kuruganti Sobha Reddy alias Kuruganti Sobhamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/2198/2025 · 2025-01-31

V Sujatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010039452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2198/2025 Between: Kuruganti Sobha Reddy Alias Kuruganti Sobhamma, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 O R D E R: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd Respondent in concluding the investigation into the FIR in Cr.No.230/2023 even though the Crime was registered long ago as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent police to complete the investigation immediately and pass…..” 2. Heard Mr.Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she married Venkata Krishna Reddy in 1972, and thereafter, they lived together in America. The petitioner’s deceased father owned ancestral property to an extent of Ac.20.00 cents, which was partitioned on 28.05.1957. The heirs of the petitioner’s father’s property includes the petitioner, her mother and her three brothers. The petitioner made several requests to her brothers to partition the property. She waited so many years, but they did not partition the property. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit for partition against her brothers and their family members. On 06.02.1980, though the petitioner registered a GPA in favour of her brother 3 Pulimi Dinakar Reddy, her brother failed to pay money owed as per terms of the G.P.A. 4. While the matter stood thus, Pulimi Dinakar Reddy and Pulimi Kamalakar Reddy, and their family members fabricated the documents and sold the petitioner’s property to others vide document No.6751/2008, dated 17.12.2008 and document No.1192/2011, dated 23.02.2011, by impersonating the petitioner’s signature and transferred her property to themselves. 5. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner lodged a report on 11.08.2023 to the 3rd respondent-police and it was registered as a case in Crime No.230/2023 for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 417, 465, 467 and 468 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statements of the petitioner and other witnesses. 6. The petitioner’s G.P.A. holder Mr.Sateesh Reddy already submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 08.07.2024 about the delay of investigation. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent directed the Station House Officer to conclude the investigation as so far no action has been taken on that representation, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. 4 7. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home furnished a copy of instructions received from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nawabpeta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, wherein it is stated that the investigation is under process, however, they could not proceed further because of pendency of the civil suit vide O.S.No.118 of 2022 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, on the same issue. However, it is submitted that they would conclude the investigation, if at all specific time is fixed. 8. In view of the same, instead of keeping the Writ Petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the investigation in the present case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 31.01.2025 Pmk 6 137 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No:2198 OF 2025 Date:31.01.2025 Pmk