1 APHC010257682020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16996/2020 Between: 1. TAVITIKI SATYANARAYANA,, S/O.LATE PULLAYYA, AGE-46 YEARS, OCC-T.V.MECHANIC, R/O.MADDIGUNTA CHERUVU, WO.MULAPARRU VILLAGE, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PENUGONDA CIRCLE, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PENUGONDA P.S., PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. PUVVULA VARALAKSHMI, D/O.PUVVULA RAVI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O.MADDIGUNTA CHERUVU, H/O.MULAPARRU VILLAGE, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. TAVITIKI GUNASHEKER, S/O.SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O.MADDIGUNTA CHERUVU, H/O.MULAPARRU VILLAGE, PENUGONDA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOPPARTHI SUMATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 3 and 4 in harassing the petitioner by calling to the police 2 station and insisting to produce the 6th respondent who is residing abroad and threatening the petitioner with dire consequences though the petitioner is not an accused in Crime No 88/20I9 dt.02.04.2019 on the file of the 4th respondent as wholly illegal arbitrary and in violation of fundamental rights i e personal life and liberty and consequently direct the 3rd and 4th respondents not to harass/ insist the petitioner to produce the 6th respondent before them in the interest of justice” 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing survives for adjudication in the Writ Petition and the matter has become infructuous. 3. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 09.09.2025 Asr 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.16996 of 2020 Dt.09.09.2025 Asr