Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52284 (AP)

B VENKATESWARA REDDY v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/5031/2021 · 2025-09-21

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010085622021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5031/2021 Between: 1. B VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O B.VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. JOURNALISM R/O FLAT NO. 102, AKSHAYA TOWERS, D.NO, 40-814-1, SRINIVAS NAGAR, KURNOOL CITY. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, NEAR OLD BUS STAND KURNOOL - 518 001. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KURNOOL III TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL 4. SMT C BHAGYAMMA, W/O MADHU SEKHAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O H.NO. 46/4-1685, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY NEAR KUDA OFFICE, KURNOOL - 518 002. ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondent No. 2 herein in not taking any action on the complaint dt. 24-12- 2 2020 made by the petitioner U/Sec. 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. in terms of the observations made in W.P.No. 23577 of 2020, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent either to conduct the investigation by himself or to entrust the same to the 3rd respondent to conduct the investigation in accordance with Law, and to grant 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 respondent No.2 herein to take appropriate action pursuant to the written complaint dt. 24-12-2020, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BABUJI TENNETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5031/2021 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 herein in not taking any action on the complaint dt.24.12.2020 made by the petitioner U/Sec 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. in terms of the observations made in W.P.No.23577 of 2020, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent either to conduct the investigation by himself or to entrust the same to the 3rd respondent to conduct the investigation in accordance with Law …” 2. Heard Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that, the complaint of the petitioner was closed due to lack of evidence. 4. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to recourse his remedies according to law before the appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATAJYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 22.09.2025 JLV 4 135 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.5031 of 2021 Dated: 22.09.2025 JLV