APHC010345742021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20923/2021 Between: 1. SMT.AMBARAPU UMME SALMA,, W/O. MASTANAIAH @ MASTAN, AGE- 31 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GADDAMVARIPALLI VILLAGE, MYDUKURU MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MYDUKURU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MYDUKUR URBAN POLICE STATION, MYDUKUR, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20923 of 2021 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: <…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action on the representation dt. 5.9.2021, for the proposed installation of statue of God Rama, in my land in Sy.No. 822/P1, of an extent of Ac.1.54 cents, Settivaripalli Village, Mudukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhdra Pradesh, as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to take appropriate action on the representation dt.5.9.2021 and pass.…= 2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that, Police have received the representation of the Petitioner, enquired into the matter and having found that the allegations mentioned in the said complaint are of civil nature, they have not registered the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that, the representation that the subject matter is civil in nature, is not correct. The allegations mentioned in the complaint given by the petitioner, clearly attract cognizable offence. Learned counsel would finally submit that a direction may be given to the Police to register a case basing on the representation of the petitioner. 4. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a matter relating to the availability of alternate efficacious remedy provided under 3 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. In the case at hand, as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Police, on receipt of the complaint, after enquiry, having found that the matter is of civil nature, have not registered the crime. In view 4 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 her remedies before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 6. 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: 16.10.2025. UPS 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.20923 of 2021 Dated.16.10.2025 UPS 168