0

Criminal petition filed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Bheemireddy Uma Maheswari vs The State Of A.P

BENCH – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6897 of 2015

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu, Srikakulam District.

 FACTS

The 2nd respondent – defacto complainant (Lakshamna Panigrahi) filed a private complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu, Srikakulam District, alleging that the petitioner/accused and her husband approached him and one Bhaskara Rao Patro, expressing willingness to sell their house situated in Srikakulam, upon which the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro agreed to purchase the same. It was alleged that the accused and her husband suppressed the real facts with regard to the title of the property and entered into an agreement of sale with them for a sale consideration of Rs.15,30,000/-, out of whichan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as advance. It was further alleged that in the sale agreement neither the measurements of the property nor the names of the boundary holders were mentioned and even the link document was also not provided, that the accused purchased the said house from her vendor under an unregistered document, that the title of the vendor of the accused itself was highly doubtful and the accused intentionally and wilfully suppressed all those details, with a view to cheat the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro. It was further alleged that in the above circumstances, the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro issued notice to the accused asking her to cancel the agreement of sale and refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs and interest, but the accused did not do the needful. Upon forwarding of the said complaint to the concerned police for investigation, the police registered a case, conducted investigation, and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transaction between the parties is in relation to sale of an immovable property pursuant to the alleged agreement of sale entered into between them and the same being purely civil transaction, the defacto complainant has to pursue civil remedies in that regard and no offence of cheating was made out, even if the entire allegations are taken to be true on their face value. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the prayer made, stating that whether the accused has committed the alleged offence or not has to be decided by the trial Court after completion of trial and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

JUDGEMENT

In this case, this criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner herein in on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu, Srikakulam District was hereby quashed.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

0

Petitioner challenging the order of detention of her husband and prays to set him at liberty in Andhra Pradesh High court.

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Veeranki Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No. 5334 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of her husband by name Veeranki Rambabu, S/o Pedalaxmayya, aged 38 years dated 19.12.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent- The Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, which was confirmed by the 1st Respondent (THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH) and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

The 2nd respondent (District Collector), West Godavari District, while categorizing the detenue as a “Bootlegger” within the definition of Section 3(2) r/w.3(1) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 passed the impugned order of detention. The same was confirmed by the 1st Respondent (State).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of detention was passed basing on vague, irrelevant, and non-existing grounds, that the offences alleged against the detenue is under Section 7(A) and 7(B) r/w.8(B) and 8(E) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and they can be dealt under general laws. It is also stated that out of five crimes, the detenue was already granted bail in four crimes and in one crime he was issued Section 41(a) Cr.P.C. notice. The detention authority erred in passing the impugned order without considering the bail orders.

JUDGEMENT

In this case the court held that the order impugned was made without proper application of mind and there is a serious procedural violation. The detenue will not fall under the category of Section 3(2) r/w.3(1) of the Act and this Court could not find that the order of detention has any material to either substantiate or justify the said allegation that the detenue is a ‘Bootlegger’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.

In this case court allowed this Writ Petition, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent. The detenue namely Veeranki Rambabu, S/o.Pedalaxmayya, aged 38 years, was  directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view Judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

0

Andhra Pradesh High court disposed a PIL by directing the respondents to undertake the identification of unauthorized encroachments over subject land and take steps for removal of such.

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

LINGIREDDY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 67 OF 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 11 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION

This case is about the writ petition direct the respondents concerned to undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/constructions/encroachments over the subject land and taking steps for removal of such encroachments/unauthorized constructions by following the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

 The Constitution of India 1949

Article 226 Power of High Courts to issue certain writs –

Any High Court may issue directions, orders, or writs, including those in the nature of writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, regardless of what Article 32 says. These writs may be used to enforce any of the rights granted by Part III and for other purposes.

 ARTICLE 14 RIGHT TO EQUALITY

All people residing on Indian territory have a right to equality before the law and equal protection under the law, according to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. According to this clause, no one shall be denied equality before the law or national legal protection. This implies that everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law regardless of caste, religion, gender, race, or place of birth. Article 14 forbids discrimination and encourages justice and impartiality in the administration of the law.

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

The fundamental rights to life and individual freedom are guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It declares that no one may be robbed of their life or personal liberty until doing so in accordance with the legal process. The protection provided by this article prevents the state or any other authority from arbitrarily denying people their right to live in dignity and freedom. The judiciary has construed it to cover a wide range of rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to a healthy environment, the right to life, and the right to livelihood.

FACTS

This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been preferred seeking to issue a Writ (Writ of Mandamus), declaring the inaction of the Respondents particularly the 2nd respondent(The District Collector) in not taking any action on complaint of the petitioner’s Society by way of Spandana request as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents particularly the 2nd respondent to remove the illegally and unauthorized compound wall or any other structures allotted to the burial ground in lands of situated at Peddaorampadu revenue village, Lingareddypalli village Obulavaripalli Mandal YSR Kadapa District (now in Annamayya District) and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.

No steps were taken by the Government and its authorities in protecting the government lands. As the public authorities are failing in their duties in protecting the government lands, which are meant for the common use of general public, despite bringing to their notice, public spirited persons are approaching this Court to intervene and direct the public authorities to protect the government lands from encroachments.

JUDGEMENT

In view of the allegation that illegal and unauthorized constructions are made in burial ground situated in the land in at Peddaorampadu revenue village, Lingareddypalli village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District (now in Annamayya District), this hon’ble court direct the respondents concerned to undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/constructions/encroachments over the subject land, within a period of two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments/unauthorized constructions by following the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/ encroachers, within a further period of four months. So, this hon’ble court has disposed of this Writ Petition (PIL).

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

0

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION OF MANDAMUS WITH DIRECTIONS, FILED AGAINST THE AUTHORITIES FOR TRYING TO DEMOLISH THE SHOP OF PETITIONER WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Battula Drsv Sanyasirao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION No. 13116 OF 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

 INTRODUCTION

This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ Order in Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents who were trying to demolish the shop of Petitioner without issuing any notice. The petitioner was in possession and of his land  situated in Panduru village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam district and Respondents were further trying to evict the Petitioner from the said property which is arbitrary, unlawful, illegal, in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and Rules made thereunder by consequently directing the Respondents not to interfere with the property of the Petitioner except under due process of law.

The main provision followed in this case are as follows: –

ARTICLE 226

The Indian High Courts have the authority to issue writs under Article 226 in order to enforce the fundamental rights protected by Part III of the Constitution. These writs include certiorari, quo warranto, prohibition, habeas corpus, and mandamus.

Everybody and every authority under the High Court’s jurisdiction is granted the authority granted by Article 226. This includes the government. Regardless of the location of the government, authority, or person against whom the writ is sought, it also permits any High Court to employ this power even if the cause of action partially arises inside its territorial jurisdiction.

In general, Article 226 gives the Indian High Courts broad authority to defend basic rights and uphold the rule of law within their respective domains.

ARTICLE 300-A

Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

FACTS

The agricultural land was located in Panduru village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam, and the petitioner was its sole owner. The petitioner has erected a tiny-thatched hut on the front of the subject land and has been operating a fruit-selling business there for several years, conducting business which is in the Panchayat, Revenue, and R&B Departments.

Due to some village politics, the Panchayat, Revenue and Roads and Buildings authorities to cause loss to the petitioner, they have planned to demolish the shop of the petitioner and to grab the land, as if property falls within the road margin. Then the Panchayat and R&B staff came to the subject property and demanded to remove the shop, failing which, they will take steps to remove the shop on 03.05.2023, without any notice and without following due process of law. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner’s subject property and further they will follow due process of law. He also submitted that the issue will be resolved once survey is conducted.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble court has disposed this writ petition with the following directions: –

1) In the presence of the petitioner or his representatives, the third respondent (The Assistant Executive Engineer) shall perform a survey and fix the boundaries of the subject property with the assistance of Revenue officials.

2) Notice must be given to the petitioner in order to be present when the survey is conducted.

3) The respondents would be free to take the proper legal action if it turned out after the survey was performed that the petitioner had infringed.

4) The above exercise must be finished within eight (8) weeks of receiving a copy of this order, and during that time, the respondents are forbidden from interfering or ejecting the petitioner from the subject property without first following the rules’ requirements for due process of law.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

0

WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER’S BROTHER ALLOWED AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Y Maddilety vs The State Of AP

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No. 712 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION

This case is about the writ petition which is challenging the order of the detention of the brother of the petitioner.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Section – 3 Power to make order detaining certain persons: –

(1) The Government finds if any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and if it is necessary so to do, can make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers granted by the said subsection if the Government is of the opinion that doing so is necessary considering any circumstances existing or likely to exist in any area within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The Government may make this determination by issuing an order in writing.

Section – 2(g) Definitions – “Goonda”

A “goonda” is a person who regularly commits, seeks to commit, or aids in the commission of acts punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, whether alone or as a member of or leader of a gang.

FACTS

As per the learned counsel of the petitioner, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool District )was confirmed by the 1st respondent (State), the petitioner wants to amend the prayer of the writ petition as Yerukali Polenti Satyam, S/o late Y.Devanna, who is now lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District to be set at liberty/ordered to be released forthwith by declaring the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent  as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

The 2nd respondent, while categorizing the detenue as “Goonda” within the definition of Sections 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 passed the impugned order of detention.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue was allegedly involved in fourteen crimes, in which, some of the cases registered due to family disputes and they can be dealt with under general laws and he was already acquitted in five cases which were not even considered by the authority. That the order of detention does not have any material to justify the detenue as goonda and that the preventive detention shall not be passed. The offences alleged against the detenue do not involve any disturbance of public order and the same cannot be used for issuance of preventive detention order under Section 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ is not maintainable. Even procedural laws were also not strictly followed by the sponsoring authority, while passing the detention orders, which amounts to procedural irregularity as well not following the provisions contained under on perusal of record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that a blanket detention order was passed without specifying a period of detention which is invalid as which is mandated under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT – 

In this case the court held that the impugned was made without proper application of mind and there was a serious procedural violation. Hence, Hon’ble court was of the opinion that the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The order of detention does not show any material to justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘goonda’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.

The court held that this Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent and the detenue namely Yerukali Polenti, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

1 2