APHC010611652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31831/2025 Between: 1. CHIMALA MALA KONDIAH, S/O KONDIAH, AGED 70 YEARS,OCC FORMER, R/O DOOR NO 4-2, MADARABAD VILLAGE, A.S. PETA MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, A.S. PETA POLICE STATION, NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. KOTAMREDDY NARASIMHAREDDY, S/O. PEDDA PENCHALA REDDY AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC PVT. EMPLOYEE, DOOR NO.5-8, CHIRAMANA VILLAGE, WEST STREET, A.S. PET MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. NARMALA VENKATA RAMANAIAH, S/O. PEDDA ANKAIAH AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC COOLIE. DOOR NO.4-5, CHIRAMANA VILLAGE, EAST STREET, NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. BOYINA SURESH REDDY, S/O. BOYINA BRAMHANANDA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O. H.NO. 16-13-23, 3RD STREET, OPP RAMACHANDRA REDDY HOSPITAL, HARINADH 2 PURAM, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. NARE SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O. RAGHURAMI REDDY, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO.6-8, CHIRAMANA VILLAGE, WEST STREET, A.S. PET MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. 8. MUTHAKANI BABU, S/O. MUTHAKANI LAKSHMIAH AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO.7-2, EAST STREET, A.S. PET MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the matter of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2nd and 3rd police in not registering the FIR basing on the complaint made by the petitioner dated 10.10.2025 against the accused is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law and procedure as contemplated under the law and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3 respondent police to register a crime basing on the complaint dated 10.10.2025 given by the petitioner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to register a crime basing on the petitioner’s complaint dated 10.10.2025 against the accused in accordance with law and procedure as contemplated under Cr.P.C, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SANAGA ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31831 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the matter of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2nd and 3rd police in not registering the FIR basing on the complaint made by the petitioner dated 10.10.2025 against the accused is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law and procedure as contemplated under the law and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3 respondent police to register a crime basing on the complaint dated 10.10.2025 given by the petitioner and to pass.…” 2. Heard Sri Sanaga Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the Respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that inspite of the complaint dated 10.10.2025 given by the Petitioner; no action has been taken by the Respondents – Police. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the subject matter is purely civil in nature. Therefore, the Police have not registered any crime basing on the complaint made by the Petitioner. 4 5. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a matter relating to the availability of alternate efficacious remedy provided under Cr.P.C instead of writ remedy, in Writ Appeal No.620 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024, held as follows: “16. In Sudhir Bhaskara Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (supra 4) the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-3 the end result in case High Court entertains writ petitions of the similar nature now covered under appeal, held as follows: “3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. ………. “20. The observations and findings in Lalitha Kumari’s case nowhere enunciate a ratio decidendi that the person aggrieved can avail writ remedy bypassing the alternate efficacious remedy provided in CrPC and what was stated therein is that whenever a police officer receives any complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, he shall register FIR without making any preliminary inquiry. Therefore, the said decision cannot come to the rescue of the appellant in the given set of facts. 21. In view of the above, the learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy available to the writ petitioner is by availing the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but not by way of filing writ petition. The order impugned in this writ appeal requires no interference of this Court. The writ appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.” 5 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and in view of the availability of the alternate efficacious remedy to the Petitioner, as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment referred to supra, it is apposite to dispose of the Writ Petition. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. 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: 18.11.2025. UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.31831 of 2025 Dated.18.11.2025 UPS 50