APHC010343142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 17414/2025 Between: MUPPIDI SESHU KUMARI, W/O. MUPPIDI RAMESH REDDY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.3-71, RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, DHARBAGUDEM VILLAGE, JELLUGUMILLI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINDENT OF POLICE, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, POLAVARAM, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, JEELUGUMILLI P.S., JEELUGUMILLI, ELURU DISTRICT. 5. PADDAM VENKATA KRISHNA, S/O. RAMUDU, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. PATHA CHIMALAVARI GUDEM, JEELUGUMILLI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR 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 Police in not taking action on the complaint given by the Petitioner on 22/08/2024 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provision of BNSS(CRPC) consequentially direct the Respondent Police to take 2 necessary action on the complaint given by the Petitioner on 22/08/2024.” 2. Sri P.R.K.Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondent – Police are not registering the case and are not taking any action on the complaint dated 22.08.2024 given by the Petitioner. 3. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, after receiving the complaint from the Petitioner, the Police called Respondent No.5 and after conducting preliminary enquiry, they called for the information from the Tahsildar to know the details of the property. It is further submitted that, after receiving report, since the matter is of civil nature, they have referred the case as “civil in nature”. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, there are ingredients to attract the offence of theft against Respondent No.5. 5. Considering the submissions made and a keen perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that the Police, after conducting preliminary enquiry, opined that the matter is of civil nature and referred the case as “civil in nature”. 6. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out her 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:14.07.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.17414 of 2025 Dt.14.07.2025 Dinesh