Animireddy Bangaru Naidu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/17583/2020 · 2025-09-03
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19140 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19140 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010266422020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17583/2020 Between:
1. ANIMIREDDY BANGARU NAIDU, S/O.APPALANAIDU, AGE 33 YEARS, CHINTAGANTLA AGRAHARAM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, SABBAVARAM CIRCLE, SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SABBAVARAM POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
5. THE MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE CUM TAHSILDAR, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
6. SMT REDDY RAMANAMMA, W/O VENKATA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O DNO 8-107, MARRICHETLA COLONY, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...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 an appropriate4writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature in WRIT of MANDAMUS aggrieved by the action of Respondents in illegally interfering with civil disputes which is subject matter of OS No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam and illegally invoking their jurisdiction under Section 107 and 111 Cr.P.C in the guise of the impugned MC 14 of 2020 by the 5th Respondent and illegally interfering with civil disputes and forced to compromise the civil disputes with unofficial respondents and trying to handover my possession to 6th Respondent which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and Sub-judice is highly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and violations of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary Articles 300-A, 14 and 21 of Constitution of
2
India and consequently set aside the 5th Respondents impugned proceedings in MC 14 of 2020 and further direct the Respondents not to interfere with civil disputes and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. A RAVI SHANKAR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner 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 in WRIT of MANDAMUS aggrieved by the action of Respondents in illegally interfering with civil disputes which is subject matter of OS No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam and illegally invoking their jurisdiction under Section 107 and 111 Cr.P.C in the guise of the impugned MC 14 of 2020 by the 5th Respondent and illegally interfering with civil disputes and forced to compromise the civil disputes with unofficial respondents and trying to handover my possession to 6th Respondent which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and Sub-judice is highly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and violations of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary Articles 300-A, 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the 5th Respondents impugned proceedings in MC 14 of 2020 and further direct the Respondents not to interfere with civil disputes and pass.........”
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent State, on written instructions, would submit that respondent Police are not interfering in the civil disputes pending between the Petitioner and the unofficial respondent and that this Court may pass appropriate orders by disposing of this Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that recording the said submission, this Writ Petition may be disposed of.
3
In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/*
4
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Writ Petition No. 17583 of 2020
04.09.2025
Mjl /*