1 APHC010314062020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20788/2020 Between: 1. LINGISETTY NAGA RAJESWARI,, W/O VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, RIO. FLAT NO.300, SATYA GRAND APARTMENTS, 2/18, BRODIPET, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR RURAL, GUNTUR. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NADENDLA POLICE STATION, NADENDLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. SRI K V NARAYANA REDDY, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NADENDLA POLICE STATION, NADENDLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. BHASKARA RAO, HEAD CONSTABLE, NADENDLA POLICE STATION, NADENDLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G KONDALA RAO 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 action of the 5th respondent along with some unidentified constable extracting signatures on the blank and written papers at the behest of the 4th respondent in the capacity of the 3rd respondent is as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental principal enshrined under the Constitution and consequently direct the 5th respondent to return the documents upon which the signatures of the petitioners have been obtained at the behest of the 4th respondent in the capacity of the 3rd respondent and direct the 2 4th respondent in the capacity of the 3rd respondent not to investigate into the crime No.129 / 2020 dt 23.07.2020 and further direct the 2nd respondent to get the investigation in Cr No.129 of 2020 dt.23.07.2020 on the file of the 3rd respondent Police Station by any other competent officer other than the 4th respondent in the capacity of the 3rd respondent or in the alternative direct the 2nd respondent to investigate the above crime under his supervision” 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: 02.09.2025 Asr 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.20788 of 2020 Dt.02.09.2025 Asr