IN THE HIQH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :; AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDA<THE TWEI^TY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 46319 OF 2018 Between: Teki Saikrishna, S/o. Annavaram, Aged about 24 years, Occ; Private Employee, R/o. D.No.16-38/A, Rajakulaveedhi, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by PrI. Secretary, Home Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Women Cell, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4. The Station House Officer, Peravali Police Station, West Godavari District. 5. The Station House Officer, Undrajavaram Police Station, West Godavari District. 6. The Circle Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town Police Station, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent nos.3 to 6 in calling the petitioner and family members and his family friends to the Police Station and threatening them with dire consequences and threatening the petitioner to give divorce to his wife by way of not contesting the divorce case filed by her vide OP No.21 of 2018, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Tanuku as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent nos.3 to 6 not to interfere into the personal life and liberty of the petitioners and his wife. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent nosrS to 6 not to call the petitioner, his family members and his family friends to the Police Station and not to interfere into his personal life. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDlER w ^4^ APHC010958692018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) B5H m [3368] ^ THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 463^^/2018 Between: 1.TEKI SAIKRISHNA, S/0 ANNAVARAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/0 D.NO.16-38/ A, RAJAKULAVEEDHI, GODAVARI DISTRICT. UNDRAJAVARAM MAN DAL, WEST ...PETITIONER AND 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRL. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WOMEN CELL, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERAVALI POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UNDRAJAVARAM POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6.THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUKU TOWN POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PSPSURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the follo^wing: A \ 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION N0.46319 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “....to issue order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 in calling the petitioner and family members and his family friends to the Police Station and threatening them with dire consequences and threatening the petitioner to give divorce to his wife by way of not contesting the divorce case filed by her vide OP No. 21 of 2018, on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Tanuku as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent nos. 3 to 6 not to interfere into the personal life and liberty of the petitioners and his wife and pass...” Learned counsel representing Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned 2. counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication, and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Learned Additional Government Pleader for Home is in 3. attendance. Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be 4. no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ■# Sd/-V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. TwoCCsto GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 3. Three C.D. Copies. [OUT] Cnr HIGH COURT DATED;23/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.46319 of 2018 DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCUTOUS WITHOUT COSTS