Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11314 (AP)

T.Abdul Rahman v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/7830/2020 · 2025-09-11

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010130192020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7830/2020 Between: 1. T.ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.T.GUDUSAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 18/304, GOOTY ROAD, GUNTAKAL VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANATAPURAM ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MR RACHARLA NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O.PENNAIAH, 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.23/309, KATHALGERI, NEAR VALMIKI CIRCLE, OLD GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAM DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not taking any action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 02.03.2020 and sent through RPAD on 03.03.2020 and not even registering an FIR or causing any enquiries in terms of the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumar' Vs. State of U.P, even after lapse of- almost 2 months as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to take action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 02.03.2020 and sent through RPAD on 03.03.2020 and to register FIR against respondents 4 and 5 herein, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not taking any action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 02.03.2020 and sent through RPAD on 03.03.2020 and not even registering an FIR or causing any enquiries in terms of the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P, even after lapse of- almost 2 months as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to take action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 02.03.2020 and sent through RPAD on 03.03.2020 and to register FIR against respondents 4 and 5 herein, and pass ...” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent State. Perused the material on record. As can be seen from the material on record, Petitioner sought for a direction to respondent authorities to take appropriate action on the Petitioner’s complaint dated 02.03.2020 by directing respondent Police not to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions, would submit that basing on the complaint given by Petitioner, respondent, police conducted enquiry, wherein, it was revealed that there are civil disputes pending between the Petitioner and respondent No.4 and that the contents of the complaint is purely civil in nature and no crime is registered and 3 would submit that this Court may pass appropriate orders by disposing of this Writ Petition. In the light of the submissions made, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent Police are directed not to interfere in the civil disputes pending between the parties except following due process of law. Needless to say, Petitioner is at liberty to workout the remedies before appropriate forum according to law. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 7830 of 2020 12.09.2025 Mjl /*