APHC010341492025 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: 18134/2025 Between: AMBATIPUDI MADHUSUDHANA SARMA, S/O. LATE VENKATESWARA SARMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MALE, D.NO.76-14-232/2, TEACHERS COLONY, SHIVALAYAM STREET, NEAR SAMATA CONVENT, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MACHILIPATNAM TALUKA PS, NEAR BUS STAND, MACHILIPATNAM. KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA 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 the action of the respondent No.3 in interfere into civil disputes and insisting the petitioner to settle with the third parties in connection with the site situated in Machiliapatnam as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violation provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 not to interfere into his personal life and liberty without due process of law.” 2 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that, the Petitioners are called by the Police only for the purpose of preliminary enquiry. 3. For ready reference, the written instructions are extracted hereunder: “It is submitted that the gist of the case is that basing on the complaint given by the Hussain Ahamed against the petitioner Ambatipudi Madhusudhana Sarma, the gist of the complaint is that there are civil disputes between them, in respect of the site in an extent of 336 sq.yards.In Sy.No.317/2A, 2B in L.P.No.63/90 of Machilipatnam, for which the both the parties are having money transaction, and after detailed perusal of the compliant the SHO i.e 3rd respondent has called the petitioner for preliminary enquiry, further the petitioner without approaching the 3rd respondent, filed the present Writ Petition with a false and baseless allegation against the respondent police, it is further submitted that except for the preliminary enquiry basing on the compliant given by the Hussain Ahamed the petitioner has called only for preliminary enquiry purpose.” 4. Sri Mangena Sree Ramarao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his 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.18134 of 2025 Dt.21.07.2025 Dinesh