APHC010330912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 812 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:- 07 [3483] K. Murali Krishna ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. N. V. R. Amarnath Advocate for Respondents : GP for Home CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 21st JULY 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present Writ Appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 21.04.2025, passed in W.P.No.9722 of 2025. 2. The Writ Petition was filed claiming that the Station House Officer (SHO) of Inavolu Police Station in Palnadu District had summoned and detained the petitioner in the Police Station for hours, abused in filthy language and threatened to implicate him in false cases without there being any crime against the petitioner. A direction in the nature of Mandamus was therefore sought against the Station House Officer not to summon or detain him in the absence of any case registered against the petitioner and without following the due process of law. 2 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.812 of 2025 3. On the matter having been come up for consideration before the learned single Judge, a statement, upon instructions, appears to have been made by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the petitioner had never been summoned to the Police Station and the allegations were not true. In that view of the matter, the petition was disposed of. 4. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned single Judge ought not to have relied only upon the statement made by the Assistant Government Pleader and close the proceedings when there was enough digital evidence with the petitioner which was not at all considered by the Court. It is also stated that the orders came to be passed without considering the relevant material. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. In our opinion, the grievance of the petitioner was twofold, firstly, that he had been summoned to the Police Station, detained illegally, abused and threatened and, secondly, that he ought not to be summoned and detained in Police Station in the absence of any case registered against him. 7. Insofar as the second part of the relief is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had been subsequently summoned yet again by the concerned in the Police Station or harassed and therefore, to that extent, no further Mandamus was necessary. However, insofar as the action of the respondents in illegally detaining the petitioner in the Police Station for hours and their alleged action of using filthy language is concerned, the same having 3 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.812 of 2025 been disputed by the official respondents requires evidence to be led, which, in the present proceedings, we feel, may not be absolutely necessary as there are remedies available to the appellant in law which can be resorted to for the same. 8. Be that as it may, we do not find the present case fit for our interference. 9. The present appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the appellant to take resort to the appropriate remedy. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 4 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.812 of 2025 361 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.A.No.812 of 2025 Dt: 21.07.2025 kbs