Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18972 (AP)

Dudala Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/15455/2021 · 2025-09-16

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010263132021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 15455/2021 Between: 1. DUDALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. CHAIRMAN SLT NEWS, FOUNDER PEN POWER NEWS PAPER RAMACHANDRAPURAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533255 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER P S, RAMACHANDRAPURAM EAST GODAVARI 5. MOKANA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. SOMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O. KARAPA, YENDAMURU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. ...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 toto issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the 2 nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 4th respondent/S.H.O.,P.S. in registering FIR No. 108 of 2021 and also the action of 3rd respondent/S.P. not conducting any enquiry basing on the audio, video and representation sent to him yielding to political pressure, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently order judicial enquiry on the incident happened on 30-06-2021 basing on the material sent by me to the 3rd respondent / S.P. and also the other material available IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 respondents 3 & 4 not to take any coercive step like arrest in FIR No. 108 of 2021, pending disposal the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RAVI PRASAD 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 for: “…to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent/S.H.O., P.S. in registering FIR No.108 of 2021 and also the action of 3rd respondent/S.P. not conducting any enquiry basing on the audio, video and representation sent to him yielding to political pressure is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently order judicial enquiry on the incident happened on 30.06.2021 basing on the material sent by me to the 3rd respondent/S.P. and also the other material available and pass...…” 2. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader is in attendance. 5. Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATAJYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.09.2025 SNI 4 72 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATAJYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.15455 of 2021 Dated.17.09.2025 SNI