APHC010275002018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 12293/2018 Between: POREDDY RANGA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.KEERTHI APARTMENTS, YELLAREDDYGUDA, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GIDDALUR POLICE STATION, GIDDALUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. DODDI BHUPAL REDDY, S/O.LATE RANGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.J.C.AGRAHARAM VILLAGHE, BESTAVARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. BEERAM VENKAT REDDY, S/O.BEERAM KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. A.S.I, O/O, VI BATALLION, A.P.S.P, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V N KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 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 inaction on the part of the respondents No.2 and 3 in acting on the complaint, dated 23- 2 03-2018 submitted by petitioner against the respondents No.4 and 5 as arbitrary, illegal, abdication of statutory duty caste on them and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to act on complaint, dated 23-03-2018 submitted by petitioner against the respondents No.4 and 5 and take appropriate action on the same.” 2. None represented for the Petitioner. 3. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the case in Crime No.10 of 2017 on the file of Besthavaripeta Police Station, Prakasam District for the offence under Section 408 IPC, which was registered based on the complaint given by the Petitioner, was referred as ‘false’. For ready reference, the written instructions are extracted hereunder: “It is respectfully submitted that the Sl of Police, B.V.Peta investigated the case and examined as many as 10 witnesses and referred the case as False and obtained orders from SDPO, Markapur on 02.04.17. He submitted final report before Hon'ble AJFCM court, Giddalur after serving notice to the petitioner. The Hon'ble court also served notice to the petitioner and the petitioner sought some time for filing protest petition and the matter was adjourned to 27.11.17. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner alleged in the writ petition that respondent No.4 along with four unknown persons came to court premises and threatened him that they would kill him if the petitioner files protest petition. It was also alleged that he approached respondent -3 i.e, Sl of Police, Giddalur and he did not take any action with the influence of respondent -5 Beeram Venkata Reddy who is working as ASI in police department. It was further alleged that he sent a complaint through RPAD to respondents No 2 and 3 but no action was taken and hence he filed writ petition in Hon'ble High court. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner neither visited Giddalur police station nor made a complaint before respondent No 3 on 30.10.17. SHO, Giddalur after receiving complaint through post on 26.03.18, found the contents are non cognizable in nature 3 and conducted enquiry over the contents and made enquiries with court constables and court staff and it was found that the contents of the petition are false and no such incident took place. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner was requested by Giddalur police to come to police station for the further course of action, but he never visited Giddalur P.S. I further submit that the petitioner was aggrieved with the action of SHO, B.V.Peta P.S for referring his case i.e, Cr.No 10/17 as False and filed this writ petition only to cause troubles to Doddi Bhupal Reddy the alleged accused in Cr.No 10/17 and respondent No 4 in writ petition. It is respectfully submitted that respondent No 5 Bheeram Venkata Reddy does not belong to civil police and he is working as Asst. Armed Reserve Sub-Inspector in 6th BN Mangalagiri and presently is on anti extremist duties in Adilabad District. I further Submit that he never influenced SI B.V.Peta in the investigation of case in Cr.No 10/17 and the case was referred on the strength of evidence and on the merits of investigation. I submit that he never influenced SHO, Giddalur on acting on the complaint given by petitioner and he did not come to Giddalur P.S to present complaint on 30.10.17. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner, aggrieved by outcome of investigation in Cr.No 10/17 of B.V.Peta P.S, created an incident which did not occur in the premises of court and furnished false information to respondents 2 and 3 and also did not come to Giddalur P.S though he was requested for further course of action. Hence it is submitted that the Writ petition is not maintainable and was filed with ulterior motives by the petitioner.” 4. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:15.07.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.12293 of 2018 Dt.15.07.2025 Dinesh