SAMUDRALA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition suffers from serious laches since the incidents, which the petitioner claims as cause of action to this writ petition, have occurred in 2001 and even the last representation was made in the year 2004. The petitioner is alleged to have been wrongfully confined by respondent No. 5, who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police at Madhira Police Station, during 29-05-2001 to 04-06-2001 in connection with Crime No. 218/SI-CI/2001 dated 09-04-2001 for the offence under Section 379 IPC. In the said crime, the petitioner was not shown as accused and it was registered against some unknown persons. It is alleged that during the investigation of the matter, the petitioner was taken into custody on 29-05-2001 and was wrongfully confined in the police station upto 04-06-2001 and the 5th respondent had allegedly collected Rs. 30,000/- from his sister and father to release him on bail.

(2.) It appears that after investigation, one Ramiseeti Hanumantha Rao was shown as the accused and he was prosecuted in C.C. No. 361 of 2001 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira. According to the petitioner, he was shown as LW. 6 in the aforesaid criminal case and he was not even examined as witness in the matter. The petitioner, therefore, alleges that his confinement in jail was illegal. He submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Khammam on 15-06-2001 to the said effect and according to him, no action was taken. The petitioner is said to have made representations to other authorities including the Hon'ble Governor and the Director General of Police on 17-06-2001 and the said representations also did not find favour. His efforts through the Legal Services Authority also failed in 2001. Likewise, he made representation to the Chief Minister on 12-07-2004. According to the petitioner, none of the representations yielded any result. It is on these allegations the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to initiate action against the 5th respondent for wrongful confinement.

(3.) I am afraid I am unable to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of more than 12 years. The petitioner has not shown any reason for filing the writ petition after such a long time. A feeble attempt is made by the petitioner to show that due to his ill-health, he could not approach the Court. It is well settled that even if there is justification for the parties on merits, unexplained delay for such long time is a serious deterrent and disables them for relief.