Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50333 (AP)

MUNGARA MADHU DEEPAK v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/31571/2025 · 2025-12-09

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010606382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31571/2025 Between: 1. MUNGARA MADHU DEEPAK, S/O.SRI KRISHNA PARAMATMA, AGED 45 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GUDUPADU VILLAGE PEDDAPADU MANDALAM, ELURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU 3. THE TAHSILDAR AND MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, PEDDAPADU MANDALAM, ELURU DISTRICT 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEDDAPADU POLICE STATION, PEDDAPADU ELURU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BUSI 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: “.... to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in passing the bind over Notice vide Roc No. 56V2025/JA, dated 01.11,2025 by directing the petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- and appear before the 3rd respondent on 03.11.2025 at 11,00 am basing on the directions of the 4th respondent issued the impugned bind over notice to the petitioner, failing which the action will be taken against the petitioner under Section 124 of Cr.PC is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the bind over notice dated 01.11.2025 and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to 2 insist the petitioner for payment of amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the interest of justice” 2. On 03.12.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Today also, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. 3. Sri Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that two crimes have been registered against the petitioner i.e. Crime No.173 of 2025 and Crime No.281 of 2025 of Pedapadu Police Station. 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed to follow due process of law regarding the crimes which are registered against the petitioner. 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:10.12.2025 Asr 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.31571 of 2025 Dt.10.12.2025 Asr