APHC010575052024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) k bl Vjb i'X •t) vr TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMB^V-: TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 30009 OF 2024 vV ■■ V >V Between: Rattan Rasheed, S/o late Pedda Sattar Aged 47 years Occ: business r/o H.no.6-114 near YSR statue, Chilakalurupeta, Palnadu District. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District at Narsaraopet. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narsaraopet, Palnadu District. 4. The Station House Officer, Vinukonda Town police Vinukonda, Palnadu District. 5. The District Collector, Palnadu District at Narsaraopet. 6. The Joint Collector, Palnadu District at Narsaraopet. 7. The Tahasildar, Vinukonda Mandal Palnadu District. 8. The Sub Registrar, Vinukonda, Palnadu District. 9. Smt Rattan Amina Bi, W/o late Rattan Chinna Sattar Aged 65 years Occ House wife r/o Lecturers colony, Chilakaluripeta, Ralnadu District. Pattan Redda Subhani, S/o late Chinna Sattar Aged 51 years r/o D.no. 22-202/1 Beside Ramalayam, Grandhi Rurna ChandraiahVeedhi, Chilakaluripeta, Ralnadu District. Home station. At 10. 11. Pattan Yusub, S/o late Chinna Sattar Aged 47 years C/o Rattan Jewelers r/o D.no. 23-230 Sharaf bazaar main road, Chilakaluripeta Ralnadu District. Pattan Yasin, S/o late Chinna Sattar Aged 40 years c/o Mee seva center near Anjaneya swamy temple old Government Hospital Chilakaluripeta, Ralnadu District. 12. ...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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 police in registering FIR and proceeding with investigation on the basis of complaint of the petitioner dt.21-10-2024 for the cognizable offence, pursuant to the endorsement given by the respondent no.6 under the RTI Act, vide respective endorsement dt. 12-2-2020 dt.19-4- 2022, 31-8-2023 18-10-2023 for creation of fictitious documents in respect of agriculture land Ac.3-03 cents in Sy.no.840/1 840/2 841 situated Vinukonda (V and M) Palnadu District at as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to register FIR and take investigation basing on the report dt.21-10-2024 submitted by the petitioner and take action as per law. up lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 nos. 2 to 4 to register FIR basing on the report dt.21-10- 2024 submitted by the petitioner and take further action as per law, pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI YENNAM SUDHEER BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: V <5 APHC010575052024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 30009/2024 Between: 1.RATTAN RASHEED, S/0 LATE PEDDA SATTAR AGED 47 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/0 H.NO.6-114 NEAR YSR STATUE, CHILAKALURUPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VINUKONDA TOWN POLICE STATION, AT VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET. 6. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET. 7. THE TAHASILDAR, VINUKONDA MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT. 8. THE SUB REGISTRAR, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 9. SMT RATTAN AMINA Bl, W/0 LATE RATTAN CHINNA SATTAR AGED 65 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE R/0 LECTURERS COLONY, CHILAKALURIPETA, RALNADU DISTRICT. 10.RATTAN REDDA SUBHANI, S/0 LATE CHINNA SATTAR AGED 51 YEARS R/0 D.NO. 22-202/1 BESIDE RAMALAYAM, GRANDHI RURNA CHANDRAIAHVEEDHI, CHILAKALURIPETA, RALNADU DISTRICT. 11. RATTAN YUSUB, S/0 LATE CHINNA SATTAR AGED 47 YEARS C/0 RATTAN JEWELERS R/0 D.NO. 23-230 SHARAF BAZAAR MAIN ROAD, CHILAKALURIPETA RALNADU DISTRICT. 12.RATTANYASIN, S/0 LATE CHINNA SATTAR AGED 40 YEARS C/0 MEE SEVA CENTER NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE OLD GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL CHILAKALURIPETA, RALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.YENNAM SUDHEER BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): \ 2 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent nos, 2 to 4 police in registering FIR and proceeding with investigation on the basis of complaint of the petitioner dt.21-10-2024 for the cognizable offence, pursuant to the endorsement given by the respondent no.6 under the RTI Act, vide respective endorsement dt.12-2- 2020 dt.19-4-2022, 31-8-2023 18-10-2023 for creation of fictitious documents in respect of agriculture land Ac.3-03 cents in Sy.no.840/1 840/2 841 situated at Vinukonda (V and M) Painadu District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to register FIR and take up investigation basing on the report dt.21-10-2024 submitted by the petitioner and take action as per law." Heard Sri Sudheer Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri 2. V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 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. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in reply, would submit that, in 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 on the complaint made by the petitioner. 3. 4. a m 3 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. Hamant 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: 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 prime 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. ‘3. “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. ” X 4 In the case at hand, as submitted by the learned Assistant Government 6. 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 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. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above 7. observations. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department State of AP, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District at Narsaraopet. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narsaraopet, Palnadu District. 4. The Station House Officer, Vinukonda Town police Vinukonda, Palnadu District. station. At 5. The District Collector, Palnadu District at Narsaraopet. 6. The Joint Collector, Palnadu District at Narsaraopet. 7. The Tahasildar, Vinukonda Mandal Palnadu District. 8. The Sub Registrar, Vinukonda, Palnadu District. 9. One CC to Sri. Yennam Sudheer Babu Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home High Court of Andhra Pradesh Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh 10. [OUT] 11. [OUT] 12. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:23/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 30009 OF 2024 (o 1/ n ’ 0 3 NOV 2025 »sCl»r»nlS«cliej|^^'^ 3- DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS