APHC010627292017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO: 27231/2017 Between: 1. PUJARI KAMAIAH, S/O. LATE MARAPPA AGED: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. 20-1275, VIGNESWARA PURAM, MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE, KOTAMITTA, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. PUJARI SUSHEELA, W/O. KAMAIAH AGED: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. 20-1275, VIGNESWARA PURAM, MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE, KOTAMITTA, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. NAMAKARI YAMINI, W/O. N. HARIPRASAD AGED: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. QTR NO. D-98, RTPP, YERRAGUNTLA, CUDAPAH, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER WOMEN PS SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, - 5. PUJARI INDIRA, W/O. SOMASUNDAR, AGED: 35 YEARS, OCC: R/O. D.NO. 20-7-105, MECLINS ROAD, NEAR DM&HO OFFICE, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2 ...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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent 4 in calling the petitioners to police station unwantedly for last one year without any reason or cause as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to call the petitioners unwontedly and daily to the police station on the pretext of investigation IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 3852 OF 2017 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 vacate the interim orders dated: 16.08.2017, made in WPMP No. 33824/17, in WP No. 27231/17. IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 33824 OF 2017 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 4th respondent not to call the petitioners unwantedly and daily to the police station on the pretext of investigation pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJASEKHAR TULASI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Writ Petition No.27231 of 2017 O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed against the action of the 4th respondent in calling the petitioners to the police station unwantedly for one year without any reason or cause is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for consequential direction to the 4th respondent not to call the petitioners unwantedly and daily to the police station on the pretext of investigation. 2) There is no representation for the petitioners. 3) During the course of hearing today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 has placed a copy of the written instructions, dated 17.09.2025 wherein it is stated as extracted herein under: “It is submitted that the 5th respondent Pujari Indira W/o Somasundar, aged 35 years, D.No.20-7-105, Nellore City filed a report at Women Police Station, Nellore on 02.03.2016 against the petitioners 1 and 2 and their son Pujari Somsundar on 25.10.2015. During her family life, her husband Pujari Somasundar and the petitioners 1 to 3 harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry and also on point of some other domestic issues. The 4th respondent (the then SHO, Women PS, Nellore) called the petitioners and the husband of the 5th respondent to Women Police Station, Nellore for the purpose of family counselling since the report relates to marital disputes. The intention of the 4th respondent (the then SHO, Women PS, Nellore) was to hold counselling and set right the family life of the 5th respondent. There was no any ulterior motive in this regard and it was not wanted or wilful. 4 However, the counselling between the petitioners and the 5th respondent was failed and the then SHO, Women PS, Nellore registered a case in Cr.No.37 of 2017 U/Secs.498(A), 417 r/w 34 IPC; Sec.4 of D.P. Act of Women PS, Nellore against Pujari Somasundar (husband), her parents-in-law (petitioners 1 and 2) and her sister-in-law (petitioner No.3) (total 4 accused) at Women PS, Nellore on 18.02.2017 at 13.00 hours and investigated the case. After completion of investigation, the then SHO, Women PS, Nellore (Respondent No.4) filed charge sheet in that case on 30.08.2017. The case is PT vide CC No.416 of 2018 on the file of the Special Mobile Court, Nellore.” 4) On perusal of the written instructions, dated 17.09.2025, it appears that there is some matrimonial disputes between 5th respondent and her husband. Accordingly, a case in Cr.No.37 of 2017 was registered by Women Police Station, Nellore U/Secs.498(A), 417 r/w 34 IPC; Sec.4 of D.P. Act against the petitioners. After completion of investigation, the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Nellore filed charge sheet on 30.08.2017 and it is numbered as CC No.416 of 2018 on the file of the Special Mobile Court, Nellore. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the said case is pending for trial before the Special Mobile Court, Nellore. 5) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that after receipt of complaint from the 5th respondent against the petitioners on 02.03.2016, the petitioners were called for to the police station for counselling before registration of criminal case. As the counselling between them was failed, thereafter, a criminal case was registered and it is pending for trial before the concerned Court. 5 6) It is also submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that as the trial is pending before the competent Court, the question of calling petitioners to the police station does not arise. This Court satisfied with the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in this regard. 7) In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that no further adjudication is required in this case, as the trial is pending before the competent Court. 8) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9) There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.26.09.2025 PGR 6 (597) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND W.P.No.27231 of 2017 Dt.26.09.2025 PGR