1 APHC010126992020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7797/2020 Between: 1. CHITTEPU JAYACHANDRA REDDY,, S/O OBUL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 4/180, MAIN BAZAR, VEERAPUNANIPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 2. CHITTEPU CHENNAMMA, , W/O OBUL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 4/180, MAIN BAZAR, VEERAPUNAINAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VEERAPUNAINAPALLI POLICE STATION, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, KADAPA BRANCH, KADAPA. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a direction, or an order, or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in involving himself in the civil matter between the petitioners and the Respondent No.4 at the instance of the Respondent No.4 and harassing the petitioners by calling to his Police Station and pressurizing the petitioners to repay the dues to the Respondent No.4 immediately or else he would foist a false case against the petitioners on the report of the Respondent No.4 as arbitrary, illegal and against the law, ii) directing the Respondent No.3 to follow the procedure strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar in case if he contemplates to register any case against the petitioners on the report of the Respondent No.4, IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 not to call the petitioners to his Police Station and not to harass them to repay the debts due to the Respondent No.4 pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7797/2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue a direction, or an order, or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in involving himself in the civil matter between the petitioners and the Respondent No.4 at the instance of the Respondent No.4 and harassing the petitioners by calling to his Police Station and pressurizing the petitioners to repay the dues to the Respondent No.4 immediately or else he would foist a false case against the petitioners on the report of the Respondent No.4 as arbitrary, illegal and against the law, ii) directing the Respondent No.3 to follow the procedure strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar in case if he contemplates to register any case against the petitioners on the report of the Respondent No.4,…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the grievance of the petitioners is that at the instance of the unofficial respondents, the police are calling the petitioners to the police station instead of giving 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that it is a civil dispute between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4 5. Considering the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed not to interfere in the civil disputes and the police are further directed to follow the due process of law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 05.08.2025 UPS 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.7797 of 2020 Dated.05.08.2025 UPS 236