APHC010513432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26930/2025 Between: 1. SATRASALA SREENIVASULU, S/O.ANJANEEYULU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. SENIOR CITIZEN, 2. SATRASALA RATHNAMMA,, W/O.SATRASALA SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.1-357-B, BY PASS ROAD, KADIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAW AND ORDER, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAMANERU DIVISION, PALAMANERU TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PUNGANUR URBAN PS, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. THE SUBINSPECTOR, PUNGANUR URBAN PS, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAVITEJA TALASEELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: 2 “.... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 to 6 in interfering with petitioners personal liberty by insisting them to appear before the Punaganur Police Station on the guise of the FIR registered vide FIR No. 183 of 2025 under section 24 of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 basing on the Complaint given by petitioner No.1 mother in law and the consequential action of the respondent No.3 to 6 threatening petitioners to settle the disputes with the defacto complainant in one or other way possible, as arbitrary, illegal and also the well-established legal principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents Nos.3 to 6 not to interfere with our personal liberty including insisting for our appearance to the Punganuru Police Station to settle the civil disputes by paying an huge amounts at the instance of the defacto complainant and C.Radha.” 2. Sri Ravi Teja Talaseela, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the de facto complainant, who lodged a case in Crime No. 183 of 2025 against the petitioners seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Under the guise of investigation in the said crime, the police are troubling the petitioners by making repeated calls and summoning them to appear before the police to settle the dispute. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home seeks time to get instructions in the matter. 4. In the view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the respondent No.6 is directed to follow due process of law regarding the 3 crime which is registered against the petitioners. The respondent No.6 is further directed not to call the petitioners to the police station and conclude the investigation in the above crime and file a report in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:26.09.2025 ASR 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26930 of 2025 Dt.26.09.2025 Asr