KOGANTI LAKSHMI Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in investigating into burglary/robbery committed in the night of 15/16-11-2009 in Aabharan shop, bearing Door No. 40-1-53B of Benz Circle, M.G. Road, Vijayawada, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to handover the case to an independent agency, like CBCID, for proper investigation.

(2.) The petitioner is the Managing Partner of the shop, by name, Aabharan, located in the above mentioned premises. The said premises was allegedly taken by the petitioner and their partners on lease under agreement, dated 1-7-2009, on a monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/- from the GPA holders of original owners, by name, U. Aditya and U.S. Spandana, residents of USA. The petitioner specifically alleged that from the first week of November, 2009, the parents of the original owners of the said premises, by name, Smt. U. Nirupa Rani and her husband-Sri U. Venkata Sai Balaram, and their relatives Sri Koganti Ramakrishna and Sri Koganti Balakrishna have conspired together and started harassing and threatening the petitioner with dire consequences if she did not vacate the said premises. On 16-11-2009 when the petitioner, her partner-Smt. Panchakarla Devi Vanita and her husband went to the shop, to their shock, they have found removal of sign board and locks. The petitioner averred that during the early hours of 16-11-2009 the said Smt. U. Nirupa Rani, her husband and their relatives-Sri K. Ramakrishna and Sri K. Balakrishna along with their henchmen highhandedly and illegally broke open the locks ofthe shop illegally and looted the entire stock worth about Rs. 10,00,000/-, cash of Rs. 2,20,000/-, computers, credit card machines etc. The petitioner's partner-Smt. Panchakarla Devi Vanitha and her husband gave a report to respondent No. 4 on the same day; that while the report was not registered as a crime, the Court staff came and served a notice and a copy of the petition in I.A. No. 641 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1366 of 2009 on the husband of the petitioner's partner; that on perusal of the said notice it has come to light that the shop owners, represented by their mother, filed O.S. No. 1366 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for grant of permanent injunction against M/s. R & R Enterprises and got an exparte interim order on 13-11-2009. The petitioner pleaded that the said R & R Enterprises was earlier run by the husbands of the petitioner's partners; that due to sustaining of losses they have closed the business; that the tenancy was concluded by the end of June, 2009; and thai, thereafter, the petitioner and her partners have taken the said premises on lease and started Aabharan Fashion Imitation Jewellary shop. The petitioner further alleged that as respondent No. 4 has not taken any action on her report, on 17-11-2009 the petitioner and her other partners sent a report, by registered post, to respondents 3 and 4. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioner and her partners are stated to have gone to the office of respondent No. 3 and narrated the entire incident to him. As the said representation also did not yield any result, they submitted a representation on 21-11-2009 to the Honourable Minister for Home for taking necessary action in the matter by marking copies of the said representation to respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner specifically pleaded that she and her partners, apart from repeatedly requesting respondent No. 4 to take action, were literally staying at the Police Station itself from 16-11-2009; and that after the petitioner and her partners sent their representation to Home Minister, respondent No. 4 hurriedly registered the complaint on 21-11-2009 at 8-00 p.m., as crime No. 586 of 2009 against Smt. Uppalapati Nirupama Rani, Sai Venkata Balaram, Ramakrishna and Balakrishna and others for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 427 and 506 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, as if the report was given on the said date. The petitioner stated that though the complaint was registered, no action was taken either to arrest the accused or to recover the stolen articles. It is further stated that only after the Advocate-Commissioner opened the shop on 24-11-2009 at 4-30 p.m., as per the directions of the I Additional Senior Civil judge, Vijayawada, they came to know, for the first time, that the entire shop was looted, articles worth about Rs. 10.00 lakhs, cash of Rs. 2,20,000/- were stolen. On 25-11-2009 the petitioner submitted another report to respondents 3 and 4 regarding the theft committed by the said persons, but, despite her repeated requests, no action has been taken. It is pertinent to refer to the specific averments made in the affidavit on the alleged inaction of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 hereunder:

(3.) The petitioner filed copies of the representation sent to respondent Nos. 2 and the Hon'ble Home Minister. In their representation, they have stated that though they have reported on the incident to respondent No. 4 on 16.11.2009, case was not registered. In the representation submitted to the Home Minister, it is stated that as respondent No. 4 has not registered the case, they have sent copy of the complaint through registered post along with a covering letter to respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 3 apart from their personally meeting respondent No. 3 in his office on 20.11.2009 at 12.00 noon and that as no action was taken, they were sending the representation to the Hon'ble Minister.