APHC010455032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23352/2025 Between: 1. KILARI SRINIVASULU NAIDU, S/O. LATE KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED 77 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURIST, 2. KILARI RADHA NAIDU, S/O. LATE KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURIST, (BOTH PETITIONERS ARE R/O CHINNAKANNALI VILLAGE, PEDDAKANNALI POST, THOTTABEEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, II TOWN POLICE STATION, SRIKALAHASTHI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, II TOWN POLICE STATION, SRIKALAHASTHI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. PEMMASANI VIMALAMMA, W/O. LATE P SUNDARA NAIDU, AGE 63 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, 6. PEMMASANI SARATH KUMAR, PEMMASANI SARATH KUMAR S/O. LATE P SUNDARA NAIDU, AGE 33 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE AND PVT. EMPLOYEE, 7. PARUCHURI VENKATRAMA NAIDU, S/O. LATE MUNAPPA NAIDU, AGE 73 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, (RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHINNAKANNALI VILLAGE, PEDDAKANNALI POST, THOTTEMBEEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23352 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue an order. more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein in calling the petitioners to their police station unnecessarily and interfering with the civil disputes threatening the petitioners to settle the matter with the respondent Nos.5 to 7 by withdrawing the civil suit filed by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere either with the civil disputes or with the personal liberty of the petitioners and pass.…” 2. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the police are calling the petitioners to the police station, in the absence of any crime registered and interfering with the civil disputes in between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents. Learned counsel would further submit that a direction may be given to the police. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the police are not interfering in the civil disputes between petitioner and the unofficial respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recording the same, the petition may be disposed of. 6. Recording the above said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed not to call the petitioner to the police station since no crime has been registered against the petitioner and not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 08.09.2025. TVN HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.23352 of 2025 Dated.08.09.2025 TVN 127