APHC010630432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 32692/2025 Between: 1. POKALA RAMANAMMA, W/O. POKALA SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC- R/O. THIRUVENGALAPURAM, CHERIOPALLE (V), TEKURPET (PO) PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT - 516505. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, , PORUMAMILLA P.S. Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.32692 of 2025 Dated 08.04.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not considering the complaint through PGRS Vide bearing No PLND202603166535 dt 1632026 for taking necessary action against the respondents 5 and 6 for their illegal encroachment and trying to demolishing the petitioners temple situated in Sy No 3421 of the Abburu Village Sattenapalli mandal Palnadu district without considering the civil suit in O S No 80/2026 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Sattenapalli is illegal arbitrary and violative of principals of natural justice and to pass such order(s).” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner submitted a complaint which was received by the Respondent Police on 29.09.2025, but it was not registered as FIR even though it discloses commission of cognizable offences. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the Respondent Police have conducted a preliminary inquiry and noticed that the complaint of the Petitioner is civil in nature therefore, they could not proceed further. 5. The complaint of the Petitioner though undated it was submitted through the PGRS Kadapa District Police on 29.09.2025. There was an endorsement that C.I of Porumamilla Mandal that is Respondent No.4 shall act upon the complaint. 3 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.32692 of 2025 Dated 08.04.2026 6. On a bare perusal of the complaint it discloses a commission of cognizable offence under the various sections. Whether the contents or the averments of the complaint true or false it has to be verified or ascertained only by way of conducting a proper investigation. There was no justification on the part of the Respondent Police in branding the complaint of the Petitioner as civil in nature or noncogizable inasmuch as the averments of the complaint are clearly disclosing commission of several cognizable offences. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ruchir Rastogi v. Pankaj Rastogi1 wherein at paragraph No.15 held as under: “15…Section 506 of the IPC takes of the offence of criminal intimidation. The FIR contained the specific averment that when the appellant questioned respondent No.1, he threatened him to remain quiet otherwise he would lose his life. All these offences are congnizble in nature and basic ingredients being there in the FIR, the High Court clearly erred in quashing the FIR. Whether the offences are proved or not would be a subject matter of the Trial and before that of the investigation as to whether a triable case is made out or not by the investigation agency but in any case, was not a case where FIR was liable to be quashed.” 8. When a complaint clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences the Police is not supposed to abdicate their responsibility in registering the case as FIR and conduct investigation. 9. Even though the Petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a private complaint before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or under Section 210 read with Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS”), this Court can order registration of an 1 (2023) 19 SCC 717 4 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.32692 of 2025 Dated 08.04.2026 FIR if the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences, particularly in view of the fact that the Petitioner has already exhausted her remedy by submitting a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, who, in turn, was endorsed to Respondent No.4 for proper inquiry, but the inquiry conducted by Respondent No.4 is unreasonable and baseless. 10. Even a layperson, without any knowledge of law, upon perusal of the averments in the complaint, can discern that commission of same cognizable offences are disclosed, warranting registration of FIR and investigation by the police. The Petitioner is an 86-year-old hapless widow. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No.4 forthwith to register the complaint of the Petitioner which was received on 29.09.2026 as FIR and conduct investigation in accordance with law as early as possible. 12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.04.2026 KMS 5 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.32692 of 2025 Dated 08.04.2026 173 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Writ PETITION No.32692 of 2025 Date: 08.04.2026 KMS