APHC010636782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 32954/2025 Between: 1. VADIGINENI VARALAKSHMI, W/O. VADIGINENI NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.15-31-VII-L-43, VII PHASE. NEAR HINDU PROJECT, KPHB COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2. VADIGINENI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE VADIGINENI VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. 15-31-VIL-L-43, VII PHASE, NEAR HINDU PROJECT, KPHB COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS. VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALLAPUDI PS, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. KARRI NAGA MOUNIKA DEVI, D/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. RAMALAYAM STREET, TIRUGUDUMETIA VILLAGE, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJA MANURI VENKATA SUMANTH 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: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the coercive and unlawful actions of Respondent No.3 in threatening the Petitioner and her husband with registration of false criminal cases under 2 Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and in compelling them to transfer their private property at the behest of the daughter-in-law without any lawful complaint, FIR, or due process, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to consider and take appropriate action on the representation dated 21.11.2025, and further direct Respondents not to summon, harass, threaten, coerce, or insist upon appearance or private settlement, or use threat of registering FIR under Sections 85 and 86 BNS or any other provisions, in absence of any cognizable offence or compliance with Section 41-A CrPC, and to restrain the police from interfering in purely civil or matrimonial property disputes.” 2. Sri Raja Manuri Venkata Sumanth, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Police are calling the Petitioners to the Police Station unnecessarily. 3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that, in view of the complaint given by Respondent No.4, the Petitioners were called to the Police Station for family counseling and no crime is registered against the Petitioners. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Police not to call the Petitioners to the Police Station, since no crime is registered against them. 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:03.12.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.32954 of 2025 Dt.03.12.2025 Dinesh