Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50514 (AP)

Madabattula Rohini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/20754/2019 · 2025-12-21

B V L N Chakravarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010428392019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 20754/2019 Between: 1. MADABATTULA ROHINI, W/O. PRASAD, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED 36 YEARS, ANGANWADI TEACHER, R/O.TALLAMUDUNURUPADU VILLAGE, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. KAMISETTY VEERA VENKATA LAKSHMI KUMARI,, W/O. RADHAKRISHNA, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED 36 YEARS, ANGANWADI TEACHER, R/O. JUVVALAPALEM VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. VANAPALLI YESU @ RATNA KUMAR,, S/O. APPA RAO, HINDU, MALE, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. TALLARNUDUNURUPADU VILLAGE, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TADEPALLIGUDEM TOWN POLICE STATION, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. GANDAM KONDALA RAO, S/O. RANGANAYAKULU, HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. PENTAPADU VILLAGE, PENTAPADU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 toto issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the official respondent No.3 in not taking action and not registering of crime on our report Dt- 27.05.2019, and not taking any action against the unofficial respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and also offends Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents to take action against the unofficial respondents and to protect the petitioners from the high handed and illegal acts of the unofficial respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 official Respondents 2 & 3 take action against unofficial respondent on the complaint Dt: 27.05.2019 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.20754 of 2019 ORDER: The writ petitioner has filed the petition seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take action against the 4th respondent and to protect the petitioner from the alleged high-handed and illegal acts of the 4th respondent. 2. Heard Sri Sivam Jaswanth, learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Sri R. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions of the 3rd respondent dated 03.01.2020, submitted that the petitioner sent a complaint dated 27.05.2019 to the Tadepalligudem Town Police Station requesting action against the 4th respondent regarding demands for property and cheques. As the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is purely civil, no action was taken. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted that the matter has been amicably settled, and accordingly, no further action is required. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in light of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the writ petition may be disposed of. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, no further orders are required in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed at the stage of admission without going into the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 22nd December, 2025 cbn 150 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 20754 of 2019 22nd December, 2025 cbn