Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17642 (AP)

PALLAGANI BALAMMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/12498/2025 · 2025-08-31

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010241482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 12498/2025 Between: 1. PALLAGANI BALAMMA, WIFE OF SOMESWARA RAO, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 4-174 NEAR SAI DWARAKA PUBLIC SCHOOL, DWARAKA NAGAR, THAMGELLAMUDI, ELURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINTHAPUDI POLICE STATION, CHINTHAPUDI, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. KAMPASATI PRASANTHI, D/O. SATHYA NARAYANA, AGED 28 YEARS. RESIDENT OF STATE BANK NAGAR, CHINTHALAPUDI ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): property pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No. 3 not considering the complaint made by the petitioner dated 13.03.2025 and 24.04.2025 for taking the action against the 4th respondent who is executing illegal sale deeds and mortagage deed in favour of 3rd parties in respect of the property belongs to the petitoner in survey No. 174/1A an extent of Ac. 0.46 cents of Yandlapalli Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal, Eluru District without having any right and title over the subject property for which I made above said complaint before the SHO on several times, but there no action has been taken against the unofficial respondent as on today which is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and Consequentially direct the offical respondents to registered FIR against the unoffical respondent who is executing illegal mortgage deed and Gift deed in favour of 3rd parties without any right and title over the property and pass……” 2. Heard Sri Eluru Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was cheated in the hands of the unofficial respondent. The petitioner has submitted the complaints to the police for registration of the crime but there is no response from the police. Then the petitioner preferred the present petition seeking a direction to the police to consider the representations of the petitioner in registering the case against the unofficial respondent. 4 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the police have enquired into the matter and they were informed that it is a civil in nature so they have not registered the crime. 5. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of written instructions dated 15.05.2025 is extracted below: “...It is submitted that, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Station House Office, Chintalapudi Police Station on 24.04.2025. Basing on the contents of the complaint the 3rd respondent police issued the receipt No.132 of 2025 and called the both parties for preliminary enquiry. On 3rd respondent enquiry it is came to light that, the petitioner and unofficial respondents having money disputes. As the matter is purely related to the civil disputes. The respondent police never interfere with the civil issues, unless there is any specific direction from the Hon’ble Court. Further the respondent police advised both the parties settle the matter before the competent civil court...” 6. In that view, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to workout 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: 01.09.2025 MH 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 51 WRIT PETITION NO: 12498/2025 Dt.01.09.2025 MH