Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29756 (AP)

GUTTI PRAVEEN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/21811/2025 · 2025-08-18

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010427132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21811/2025 Between: 1. GUTTI PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. GUTTI ESWARA RAO, R/O PLOT NO. 266/2, SECRETARIAT COLONY, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL, KANCHA GACHIBOWLI, GACHIBOWLI, K.V. RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA - 500032. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BUCKINGHAMPETA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM. 4. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, I TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM. 6. KARRI RAVEENDRA REDDY, PLOT NO. 401, DHANUSH ENCLAVE, NEAR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM. ...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 2 pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to the Respondent No.(s) 1-5, declaring the actions of Respondent No.(s) 1-5 in interfering into the commercial dispute with Respondent No. 6 in connection with Yard Management Service Agreements, i.e., registration of FIR No. 132/ 2025 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the civil/commercial dispute with Respondent No.6, in connection with Yard Management Service Agreement and pass s IA 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 pleased to direct the Respondents not to summon the Petitioner and other accused employees in FIR No. 132/ 2025 except for the dates directed by this Hon’ble Court in Order dated 21.07.2025 passed in CrI. P. No. 6302/ 2025 titled “Srinivasulu G.J. & Ors. V. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.” and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURYA TEJA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21811 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to the Respondent No.(s)1-5, declaring the actions of Respondent No.(s)1-5 in interfering into the commercial dispute with Respondent No.6 in connection with Yard Management Service Agreements, i.e., registration of FIR No.132/ 2025 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the civil/commercial dispute with Respondent No.6, in connection with Yard Management Service Agreement and pass…” 2. Heard Sri Surya Teja Anumolu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case has been registered against the petitioner and eight (8) others, basing on the report of the unofficial respondent No.6. The unofficial respondent No.6 is threatening the petitioner through Police to settle the issue. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on written instructions would submit that a crime has been registered against the petitioner and 8 others in Cr.No.132 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 420, 464, 477-A, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, 2000 of I Town P.S., Vizinagaram. The investigation is almost completed. 4 There is no necessity for the police to call the petitioner to the police station. He would further submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed not to call the petitioner to the police station without following the due process of law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 19.08.2025. UPS 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.21811 of 2025 Dated.19.08.2025 UPS 152