APHC010345882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI WRIT PETITION NO: 17592 OF 2025 PRATAPA Between: Kondapalli Siva Prasad, S/o. Srinu Narsapuram Village, Korukonda Pradesh. Age; 30 years, Occ; Coolie R/o. 1-207, East Godavari District., Andhra mandal. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, O/o. Secretariate, Velagapudi Pradesh. 2. The Superindent of Police, Pradesh. Guntur District, Andhra Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra 3. The Sub Divisional Police officer, Kakinada District., Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Kakinada Division,at Kakinada Women Police Station, Kakinada at Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. Mr. K. S. N. Murthy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station Kakinada, at Kakinada, Kakinada District 6. Kondapalli Durga Revathi, Yedukondalu Age- 28 Ramarao Peta, Kakinda town. Andhra Pradesh. W/o. Siva Prasad D/o. Isukapudi R/o D.No. 10-1-31, Cheedilapora, years. Kakinada district, Andhra Pradesh 7. Iskapudi Durga Prasad, S/o. Isukapudi Yedukondalu, • , 31, Cheedilapora, Ramarao Peta, Kakinda town, Andhra Pradesh. R/o D.No.10-1- Kakinada district. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 and 5 and their staff in harassing the Petitioner and his family members by calling them to Police Station to settle the matrimonial dispute at Police Station illegal and arbitrary as and against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and Consequently to direct the Respondent. No 2 to 5 not to harass the petitioner and his family members by calling them respondent Police station to settle the matrimonial dispute respondent No.6 without following due process of Law. to the 4 with the lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent. No 2 to 5 not to harass the petitioner and his family members by calling them to the 4 respondent Police station to matrimonial dispute with the respondent No.6 without following due of Law. Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7:-- The Court made the following order: settle the process 1 APHC010345882025 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: 17592/2025 Between: 1.KONDAPALL1 SIVA PRASAD, S/0. SRINU, AGE- 30 YEARS OCC- R/0. 1-207, NARSAPURAM VILLAGE, KORUKONDA COOLIE MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL 0/0. SECRETARIATE, SECRETARY. HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE SUPERINDENT OF POLICE, KAKINADA. KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, KAKINADA DIVISION.AT KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT., ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WOMEN POLICE STATION KAKINADA, AT KAKINADA, PRADESH. KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA 5.MR K S N MURTHY, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION KAKINADA, AT KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. WOMEN 6.KONDAPALLI DURGA REVATHI, W/O. SIVA PRASAD ISUKAPUDI YEDUKONDALU AGE- 28 YEARS. R/0 D.NO.10-1-31, CHEEDILAPORA, RAMARAO PETA, KAKINDA TOWN, KAKINADA D/0. 2 ■ DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 7.ISKAPUDI DURGA PRASAD, S/0. ISUKAPUDI YEDUKONDALU D.NO.10-1-31, CHEEDILAPORA, RAMARAO PETA KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. R/0 KAKINDA TOWN ...RESPONDENT(S); Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 and 5 and their staff in harassing the Petitioner and his family members by calling them to Police Station to settle the matrimonial dispute at Police Station as Illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice unconstitutional and Consequently to direct the Respondent. No 2 harass the petitioner and his family members by respondent Police station to settle the and to 5 not to calling them to the 4 matrimonial dispute with respondent No..6 without following due process of Law and the pass lA NO: 1 OF 2a7R Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to direct the Respondent. No 2 to 5 not to harass the petitioner and his famiiy members by caiiing them to the 4 respondent Police station to settie the matrimoniai dispute with the respondent N0..6 without following due process of Law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17592/2025 ORDER; This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: "...p/eased to issue a writ order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by deciaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 and 5 and their staff in harassing the Petitioner and his famiiy members by caiiing them to Poiice Station to settie the matrimonial dispute at Police Station as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and Consequently to direct the Respondent. No 2 to 5 not to harass the petitioner and his family members by calling them to the 4 respondent Police station to settle the matrimonial dispute with the respondent No. 6 without following due process of Law and pass... ” Heard Sri Dr.Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the 2. and respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Police are calling the petitioner and his family members to the Police Station in trying to settle the matrimonial dispute and demanding money from the petitioners. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that basing on the report given by the respondent No.6, who is the wife of the petitioner herein. The Police called them to the Police Station for counseling purpose. They have never demanded anything from the petitioner. 5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4 to proceed with the matter according to law and when counseling is not successful, the parties are at liberty to recourse their 3. 4 remedies according to law. The Police need not call the petitioner and his ^ family members again and again for counseling. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC FiCER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh O/o. Secretariate, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Superindent of Police, Kakinada Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Sub Divisional Police officer, Kakinada Division, Kakinada District., Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Dr Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies at Kakinada, Kakinada, at ssb HIGH COURT DATED:15/07/2025 0Co^ andw^ (1 <1 m 2^ ^ . Curreni oeswpn ^ ORDER WP No.17592 OF 2025 S> 3CO DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS