1 APHC010390472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20197/2025 Between: 1. ARATLA SARATH BABU, S/O. A.NANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO.6-4-473-1, HAMEED NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 2. M.MUNEMMA,, W/O.LATEVENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-5-573, BALAJI COLONY, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINDENTENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI URBAN DISTRICT,TIRUPATHI. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI WEST POLICE STATION,TIRUPATHI. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUPATHI WEST POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI 5. THE SI OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI WEST POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI 6. MR ANIL KUMAR, SI OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI WEST POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI. 7. G M RAKESH KUMAR, PROPRIETOR OF LAXMI PAN BROKER R/O.DOOR NO.1-2-118, F-11, PRAKASAM ROAD, OPP MGR STATUE, TIRUPATHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P V N KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 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 Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action on the part of the respondent No 5 and 6 in pressurizing petitioners to settle financial issue with the respondent No.6 and calling petitioners to his police Station even though there is no pending crime against petitioners as arbitrary illegal colorable exercise of power apart from being voilative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No 5 in the personal capacity as respondent No.6 not to pressurize us to settle the issue with the respondent No.7 and not call to his police station” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the police called the petitioners to the police station for a preliminary enquiry based on the complaint filed by Respondent No.7 4. For ready reference, the written instructions are extracted hereunder: “I further submit that, the 5th respondent called the petitioner for preliminary enquiry on the 7th respondent complaint only. But the petitioner did not turn up to the 5th respondent police station and choose to file present writ petition. It is further submitted that, the respondent No.5 and 6 never pressurized the petitioners to settle financial issue with the respondent No.7. All the allegation mentioned in the writ petition are false, invented only to file the present writ petition.” 3 5. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies before the 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.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 07.08.2025 Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.20197 of 2025 Dt.07.08.2025 Asr