Nara Venkata Sudhakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/30633/2023 · 2025-11-21
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52505 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52505 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010592752023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 30633/2023 Between:
NARA VENKATA SUDHAKAR, S/O NARA KONDAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO 2-54, RAMALAYAM STREET, SOMAVARIPETA VILLAGE, BESTHAVARIPETA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BESTHAVARIPETA POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V.RAVINDHAR 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 declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the F.I.R on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 03-10-2023, which was registered in cyber crime portal vide Acknowledgement No 30210230011840 even after several oral representations as illegal arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to register the F.I.R on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 03-10- 2023, which
2
was registered in cyber crime portal vide Acknowledgement No 30210230011840.”
2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the Police have not received any complaint from the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner never approached the Police for registration of any case.
3. Sri V.Ravindhar, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to make fresh representation, if so advised. 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:22.11.2025 Dinesh
3
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
W.P.No.30633 of 2023
Dt.22.11.2025
Dinesh