APHC010339262020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22481/2020 Between: NALLA YESUBABU,, S/O. N GOVIND, AGED 50 YEARS, MALE, CASTE KAPU, AGRICULTURAL COOLI, R/O AYANAVALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY THE SECRETARY(HOME DEPT) VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT KAKINADA 4. THE COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT KAKINADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B VENKATARATNAM 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 to investigate the complaint Dt. 01-07-2019 to the Superintendent of Police for the cause of the death of the petitioner son Ayappa Ganesh and give such order and orders deemed tit and proper in the circumstance of the case.” 2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, by way of counter, would submit that, Police during enquiry about the death of the deceased Nalla Ayyappa Ganesh, recorded the statements of the witnesses, who stated that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling 2 fan. It is further submitted that, neither the friends nor the parents nor the relatives of the deceased did not prefer to give any police report at that time. The parents of the deceased having projected the suicide death of the deceased into heart attack, got Chandranna Bheema – PMJJBY amount. It is submitted that, since then, the Petitioner slept over the matter for a period of more than two and half months and filed the present writ petition. Petitioner never came to Ainavilli Police Station or Kadiyam Police Station or Bommuru Police Station and never presented a report. 3. Sri B.Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that a direction may be given to the Police to investigate on the complaint given by him. 4. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a matter relating to the availability of alternate efficacious remedy provided under Cr.P.C instead of writ remedy, in Writ Appeal No.620 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024, held as follows: “16. In Sudhir Bhaskara Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (supra 4) the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-3 the end result in case High Court entertains writ petitions of the similar nature now covered under appeal, held as follows: “3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. ………. 3 “20. The observations and findings in Lalitha Kumari’s case nowhere enunciate a ratio decidendi that the person aggrieved can avail writ remedy bypassing the alternate efficacious remedy provided in CrPC and what was stated therein is that whenever a police officer receives any complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, he shall register FIR without making any preliminary inquiry. Therefore, the said decision cannot come to the rescue of the appellant in the given set of facts. 21. In view of the above, the learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy available to the writ petitioner is by availing the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but not by way of filing writ petition. The order impugned in this writ appeal requires no interference of this Court. The writ appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.” 5. In the case at hand, as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Police, on enquiry into the death of the deceased, having found that no enmity is established between the suspected persons and the deceased, have not registered the crime. In view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and in view of the availability of the alternate efficacious remedy to the Petitioner, as was held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment referred to supra, it is apposite to dispose of the Writ Petition. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. 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:24.11.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.22481 of 2020 Dt.24.11.2025 Dinesh