APHC010928482018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 44878/2018 Between: P.SYED ALTHAF, S/O.LATE P.SYED KHALEEL SAB, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.20-2-26, NIMKAMPALLI, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ( HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETRIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RURAL POLICE STATION, HINDUPUR,ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HINDUPUR II TOWN POLICE STATION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. D WAZEER SAB, S/O.LATE.HUSSAIN SAB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION,THUMUKUNTA VILLAGE, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 6. NYAMAT KHAN, S/O.LATE VALI SAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION, THUMUKUNTA VILLAGE, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 7. SHAKIR, S/O.LATE VALI SAB, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS,THUMUKUNTA VILLAGE, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 8. DAWOOD KHAN, S/O.LATE DADU SAB, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS,THUMUKUNTA VILLAGE, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 9. KHASIM SAB, S/O.LATE DADU SAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, THUMUKUNTA VILLAGE, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA REDDY G.L. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. SHAFATH AHMED KHAN 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 action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the representation / complaint dated 22.11.2018 and taking any action against the Respondent Nos.5 to 9 so far and inspite of several requests and Personal approaches of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, improper, and unconstitutional and against the procedure contemplated under the code of criminal procedure and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation/written complaint dated 22-11-2018 of the petitioner and to take action against the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 forthwith as per the law and also procedure contemplated under the code of criminal procedure.” 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, based on the complaint given by the Petitioner, Police enquired into the matter and found that there is a civil dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.5 to 9 in respect of the land in question and there are no criminal ingredients in the allegations of the Petitioner. Hence, no action is liable to be taken on the complaint of the Petitioner and the same was informed to the Petitioner vide Letter dated 17.12.2018. 3. Sri G.L.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his 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:24.07.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.44878 of 2018 Dt.24.07.2025 Dinesh