APHC010553722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29056/2025 Between: 1. D DURGA PRASAD, S/O.LATE VENKATESWARLU AGED 54 YEARS OCC RETD EMPLOYEE R/O.1/5 BRODIPET GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AT GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST DIVISION GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ARUNDALPET POLICE STATION 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 pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not registering the complaint dated 09-08-2025 as an FIR is as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un constitution and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the judgement in Vinod Kumar Pandey and Another Vs. Seesh Ram Saini and Others and consequently direct the respondent to register the complaint submitted by the petitioner dated 09.08.2025 as an FIR forthwith and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, by the Petitioner for the following relief: “.... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not registering the complaint dated 09-08-2025 as an FIR is as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un constitution and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the judgement in Vinod Kumar Pandey and Another Vs. Seesh Ram Saini and Others and consequently direct the respondent to register the complaint submitted by the petitioner dated 09.08.2025 as an FIR forthwith and to pass ...” Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent State. Perused the material on record. As can be seen from the record, the grievance of the Petitioner is that respondent Police did not register any crime basing on the Petitioner’s complaint dated 09.08.2025. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that during enquiry, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the allegations against the official respondents are false and that this Court may pass appropriate orders by disposing of this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently refuted the said submissions. 3 In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedy before appropriate forum according to law. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 29056 of 2025 21.11.2025 Mjl /*