APHC010458362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23941/2025 Between: 1. B KALAVATHAMMA, W/O B. BALIREDDY BAYYAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O REDD5RVARIPALLI, VIPPAKOTA VILLAGE, MULAKALACHERUVU MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, OFFICE AT MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULAKALACHERUVU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MULAKALACHERUVU POLICE STATION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking further steps in registering the F.I.R on the petitioners complaint Dt.06.08.2025 inspite of repeated requests, though it is a cognizable offence, as nothing but illegal, arbitraiy, highhanded and violative of fundamental 2 and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgment in Lalita Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh, rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India and consequently direct the Respondents, to take action by registering the F.I.R on the petitioners complaint Dt.06.08.2025.” 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the disputes between the parties are purely civil in nature. 3. 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 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.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:11.09.2025 ASR 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.23941 of 2025 Dt.11.09.2025 Asr