APHC010336282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17861/2025 Between: 1. VELPALURU GHOUSE MOHIDDIN, S/O.V.BASHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.4-48, PINNAPURAM VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 2. .MUGI VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O.SHIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.2-80/2, VENKATAPURAM VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE HOUSE OFFICER, ATMAKUR POLICE STATION, ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. GUNDAIN NAVEEN REDDY, S/O.RAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.NALLAKALUVA VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY 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 to declare the action of the Respondent No.1 in interfering with the civil dispute pending between the 2 Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 and thereby disturbing the peace and personal liberty of the Petitioner without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, beyond jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondent No. 1 not to disturb the peace and personal liberty of the Petitioners by interfering in the civil dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.4 without following due process of law in the interest of justice.” 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that, on 22.06.2025, based on the complaint given by one B.Mahaboob Basha, the Petitioner was called to the Police Station for preliminary enquiry and so far, no crime has been registered against the Petitioner and that the Police are not interfering with the civil disputes between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondent. 3. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that recording the same the petition may be disposed of. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 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:21.07.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.17861 of 2025 Dt.21.07.2025 Dinesh