APHC010615452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 35389/2025 Between: 1. SRIRANGAM RAMA DEVI, W/O. RAMESH, AGED 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DR.NO.309, RAJA RAJAN NAGAR, SELAM-16, TAMILNADU STATE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DR.NO.7/168, RACCHBANDA RAMALAYAM, ADIGOPULA VILLAGE, DURGI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. CIRCLE LNSPECTERRURAL, MACHERLA POLICE STATION, MACHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. STATION HOUSE OFFICE, DURGI L AND O, POLICE STATION, DURGI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. GANGAVARAPU LAKSHMI NARASAMMA, W/O. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. ADIGOPPULA VILLAGE, DURGI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THONDAPU SRILAKSHMI, W/O. RAMA RAO, AGED 40 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DHARMARAM VILLAGE, DICHIPALLI MANDAL, 2 NIZAMABAD DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. 7. THONDAPU RAMA RAO, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. DHARMARAM VILLAGE, DICHIPALLI MANDAL, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. 8. PALLE MALLAIAH, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED 45 YEARS, OBULESUNIPALLE, DURGI MANDAL, PAINADU DISTRICT. 9. CHINCHETI KOTAIAH, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED 45 YEARS, ADIGOPULLA VILLAGE, DURGI MANDAL, PAINADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 35389/2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Respondents not providing protection to me inspite of giving complaint and so also by way of Regd. Post dt.14.10.2025 before the 4th Respondent and so also to all the concerned Higher Officials, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 19(1)(G), 21, 300A of the Constitution of India, thereby restrain the Respondent Nos.5 to 9 to interfere with my peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of property covered under Regd. Gift Deed dt.08.02.2011 under Doct.No. 325/2011S.R.O., Gurajala.…” 2. Heard Sri K.H.V.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the official respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police are insisting the petitioner to withdraw the appeal in A.S.No.351 of 2021, which is pending on the file of this Court. He would further submit that it is also a case of non-registration of FIR by the police on the complaint made by the petitioner dated 14.10.2025. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, both the parties were called to the police station for enquiry. During the 4 enquiry, it is found that the subject matter is purely civil in nature. As such, the police have not registered any crime against the unofficial respondents. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint submitted by the petitioner would reveal cognizable offences. The police did not choose to register the crime in this matter. 6. 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. ………. “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. 5 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.” 7. In the case at hand, as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Police, on receipt of the complaint, after enquiry, having found that the matter is of civil nature, 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 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 her remedies before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 8. 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 pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.12.2025. UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 35389/2025 Dated.20.12.2025 UPS 174