1 APHC010208272020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13667/2020 Between: 1. GURRALA LOVAMMA, FATHER NAME. VENKANNA AGE. 24,OCC. COOLIE, R/O. OMMANGI VILLAGE, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SUPERINDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DISA MAHILA POLICE STATION, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISA POLICE STATION, KAKINDA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PRATHIPADU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 7. MR RAVI KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WORKED IN PRATHIAPADU POLICE STATION AT THE TIME OF OFFENCE PRESENTLY WORKING IN ANNAVARAM POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2 ...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 any writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of DISA Mahila Police Station and respondents 4 to 6 in not registering FIR against the 7th respondent though the Circle Inspector, Prathipadu enquired and submitted his report in respect of an offence committed by 7th respondent on 2.6.2020 against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of provisions of CrPC besides violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 2NDrespondent to take steps for registration of FIR against the 7th respondent in pursuance of report lodged on 4.6.2020 and also to take steps against the respondents No. 3 to 6 for dereliction of duties and in attempting to screen the offence committed by the 7th respondent and to pass 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 2nd respondent to initiate steps to register FIR and to conduct fair investigation in respect of an offence taken place on 2.6.2020 against the petitioner by 7th respondent pending disposal of writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.7 in W.P.No. 13667 of 2020 to file the counter Affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. K B RAMANNA DORA 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13667 of 2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue any writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of DISA Mahila Police Station and respondents 4 to 6 in not registering FIR against the 7th respondent though the Circle Inspector, Prathipadu enquired and submitted his report in respect of an offence committed by 7th respondent on 2.6.2020 against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of provisions of CrPC besides violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 2NDrespondent to take steps for registration of FIR against the 7th respondent in pursuance of report lodged on 4.6.2020 and also to take steps against the respondents No. 3 to 6 for dereliction of duties and in attempting to screen the offence committed by the 7th respondent and to pass.…” 2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Challa Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the official respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is alleged against the respondent No.7 that he has forcibly taken the cell-phone from the upper- garments of the petitioner and that is why, she has submitted the information to the police for registration of crime. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 basing on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.7 would submit that after receiving the complaint from the petitioner, the respondent-authorities have conducted enquiry and 4 ultimately the enquiry which was initiated against the respondent No.7 was closed, since “action dropped” against him vide proceedings dated 06.07.2011 in C.No.61/MPR/A9/2020. No case is made out against the respondent No.7 for registration of crime on the complaint of the petitioner. 5. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the aforementioned proceedings is extracted hereunder: “Sri S.Ravi Kumar, formerly worked at Prathipadu PS from 23.06.2019 to 23.07.2020. Sri Gurrala Musalayya of Vommangı village, Prathipadu (M) gave a complaint in Prathipadu PS for settling a path way dispute which is a Civil dispute pending in Civil Court vide OS No.104/2014 in the Court of Jr. Civil Judge, Prathipadu. The respondents also presented a report to Sl of Police, Prathipadu for settling the dispute. A case in Cr.No.201/2020 U/s. 341, 506, r/w 34 IPC was registered at Prathipadu PS and the case is under investigation. The Vommangi village is a Hyper-sensitive of Prathipadu (M) and the people are very complicated and in every small issue the villagers likely to create Law and Order problem. You have revolted against the petitioner in high handed behavior collected cell Phone from the petitioner and deleted the video, which shows your negligence attitude in legitimate duty and damage the image of Police. The charged officer acknowledged the memorandum of charge on 10.12.2020 and submitted his explanation to this office on 06.07.2021. I have gone through the articles of charge connected records and explanation of the charged officer carefully. The explanation of the charged officer is convincing. Hence further action is dropped.” 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home supporting the case of the respondent No.7 would submit that their enquiry would show that there is no such incident happened at the scene of offence on that particular date. 5 5. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedies before the appropriate forum according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 21.08.2025. UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.13667 of 2020 Dated.21.08.2025 UPS 76