APHC010457742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23924/2025 Between: UPPALADADIUM VIJAYA, W/O SURYA PRATAP, MAJOR,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O FLAT NO. 101, LAKSHMI SNAPHAIR APARTMENT, ROAD NO.27, MAYURI NAGAR, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD CITY, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE SHO, TALUKA POLICE STATION, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. MR A Q JAVVAD AHMED QURESHI, S/O A.Q. JEELANI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O RAMA CHANDRA PURAM, H/O RAMARAJUPALLE, KADAPA CITY AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. C V R RUDRA PRASAD 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 inaction of the 3rd Respondent on the Petitioners complaint dt.23-11-2024 as illegal, 2 arbitrary, violation of mandatory duty cast on him under Section 173 of BNSS, violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to register the FIR on the Petitioners complaint dt.23-11- 2024, cause investigation on cognizable offences.” 2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that, based on the complaint of one Pushparaj Kamalakaran, a case in Crime No.278 of 2024 has been registered against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 126(2), 324 (2), 351 (2) read with 3(5) of BNS. It is further submitted that, no complaint has been received by the Police from the Petitioner as alleged. There is no truth in the allegations leveled by the Petitioner and hence, the petition may be disposed of. 3. Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedies before appropriate forum. 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:15.09.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.23924 of 2025 Dt.15.09.2025 Dinesh