APHC010161802021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 9109/2021 Between: 1. SHAIK PHYZUDDIN,, S/O. JAILABDDIN, AGE 55YEARS, OCC RETD GOVT EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO.18-18-33, MUFTI STREET, CHINA BAZAR, LALAPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,. VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALARI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, LALAPET POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, LALAPET POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. SABINA PARVEEN, W/O.SHAIK PHYZUDDIN, AGE 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO.18-18-33, MUFTI STREET, CHINA BAZAR, LALAPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR 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 2 pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents 1 to 3 on the petitioner reports dt 08.02.2021 and not protecting petitioners life and liberty as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and offends Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents to take departmental action against Respondent No 4 and 5 and prosecute the real culprits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to undertake investigation on the petitioner complaint on 08.02.2021 and take departmental action against 4th and 501 Respondent, prosecute the real culprits, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BASHA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 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 inaction of the Respondents 1 to 3 on the petitioner reports dt.08.02.2021 and not protecting petitioners life and liberty as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and offends Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents to take departmental action against Respondent No.4 and 5 and prosecute the real culprits and pass...” 2. Heard Sri Shaik Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that police are not taking any action against the report dated 08.02.2021 given by the petitioner. 4. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that, except for the filing of a copy of C.C. No.302 of 2016, the petitioner has not submitted the original complaint/information allegedly given to the police by respondent No.6. It is noted that respondent No.6 did not choose to disclose the existence of the earlier case in C.C. No.521 of 2013, which had ended in acquittal due to the de facto complainant and other witnesses failing to support the prosecution. In such circumstances, this Court finds no fault with respondent Nos.4 and 5, and therefore, initiation of departmental action against them does not arise. 5. The petitioner herein is the husband, and the respondent No.6 is his wife. She had earlier lodged a complaint under Section 498-A IPC, following which, 4 after due investigation, the police filed a charge sheet. The Court took cognizance of the offence in C.C. No.521 of 2013. The judgment in the said case reveals that respondent No.6, who was examined as P.W.1, turned hostile and did not depose against her husband, leading to the acquittal. Be that as it may, since respondent No.6 did not disclose the earlier case while lodging the subsequent complaint, the question of initiating departmental action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for registering a second case does not arise. The Court has taken cognizance of the offences in C.C. No.302 of 2016. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed. However, petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before appropriate forum according to law. 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: 06.10.2025. SNI 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.9109 of 2021 Dated.06.10.2025 SNI 101