APHC010347782018 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: 16167/2018 Between: BODDULURI ANJANEYULU, S/O PERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O KURNOOL ROAD, VENKATESWARA NAGAR AREA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ONGOLE TALUQ POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ONGOLE TALUQ POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. ADDEPALLI RAMANJANEYULU, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O PERNAMITTA VILLAGE, S N PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 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 respondents 3 and 4 in threatening the petitioner to settle the civil disputes with 5th respondent and interfering with the life and liberty of 2 petitioner without following procedure, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 21 of constitution of India, and without jurisdiction.” 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that, based on the complaint given by Respondent No.5, Respondent No.4 summoned the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 and as the matter is of civil nature, Respondent No.4 advised Respondent No.5 to seek redressal before the Civil Court. For ready reference the written instructions are extracted hereunder. “Pursuant to the complaint of the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent summoned the petitioner as well as 5th respondent on 25.4.2018 through phone for the purpose of enquiry. During the course of enquiry it was revealed that the 5th respondent filed a civil suit against the petitioner herein with regard to recovery of the amount vide O.S.No. 619 of 2015 and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, passed exparte decree on 18.12.2015. As the matter relates to civil in nature, hence the 4th respondent informed the same to the 5th respondent to redressal his matter before the civil court. It is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner that the respondents 3 and 4 Inspector of Police and Station House Officer, Ongole Taluka Police Station, Prakasam District threatened the petitioner to settle the civil disputes with the 5th respondent Addepalli Ramanjaneyulu and interfered with the life and liberty of the petitioner is incorrect, baseless, far from truth and has been created for the purpose of filing the present Writ Petition. It is submitted that it is incorrect to say that the 4th respondent called the petitioner through phone on 25.4.2018 and threatened him to settle the issue with the 5th respondent, hence denied. Except conducting the enquiry on the complaint of the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent never interfered with the life and liberty of the petitioner or threatened the petitioner to settle the issue with the 5th respondent at any point of time.” 3. Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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:15.07.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.16167 of 2018 Dt.15.07.2025 Dinesh