IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 38964 of 2014 BETWEEN P.Nagalakshmi AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Home Affairs), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. In spite of my repeated questions, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to substantiate and clarify the facts.
3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that she is a victim where her gold chain was snatched, which was subject matter of a complaint before the Amberpet police station, Hyderabad, where one Pattula Yadagiri and Mucharala Prackaham were apprehended and tried.
So far as A1-Pattula Yadagiri is concerned, he pleaded guilty and accordingly, C.C.No.71 of 2007 appears to have disposed of on 26.06.2007 against A1 for the offence under Section 411 IPC.
So far as A2 is concerned, the case was split and numbered as C.CNo.504 of 2007 and tried by the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and under judgment of the said court, dated 30.08.2008, the said case ended in acquittal of A2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was not aware of the disposal of the said criminal case and for the first time, after six years of disposal of the said case, she has filed the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus against the police alleging that they failed to investigate the said C.C. and are liable to return the recovered gold ornaments. Petitioner also seeks that the respondents should pay compensation to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Section 357A Cr.P.C. in support of petitioner’s claim for compensation.
5. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as, firstly, petitioner has never questioned the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate as above. Learned counsel also is not able to explain the purport of Section 357A (3) Cr.P.C. where even in case of acquittal or discharge, if the victim has to be rehabilitated, it is the Magistrate who has to make appropriate recommendation. The said provision was inserted in the Cr.P.C. under A.P. Act 5 of 2009, which is subsequent to the date of judgment of the trial Court. Hence, prima facie, I am unable to see any substance in the contention of the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 18, 2014 LMV