APHC010543612023 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: 28379/2023 Between: CHINTAGUNTLA LUDHIYAMMA, W/O CHINNA VENKATAIAH AGED 50 YEARS, CASTE, SC, D-NO 12-180 A, INDIRA COLONY, SANTHANUTHALAPADU, PRAKASAM DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, A. P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALUKA POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR 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: “.... writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities in not taking any action on report dated.14.02.2020 on the file of the Ongole Taluk P.S. registered under Section 174 CrPC as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to hand over the case investigation to an independent investigation agency i.e CBCID ( Crime Branch- Crime Investigation 2 Department) for registration of FIR and for investigation as the person involved in the incidents are politically bigwigs, they may influence the local police in investigating the case.” 2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, on the representation of the Petitioner, the Police have conducted investigation, concluded the same and filed a report before the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ongole and the orders are awaited from the Court. 3. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to file a protest petition before the concerned Court. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to recourse her remedies before the Court wherein the Police filed a report by referring the case as Undetectable. 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.28379 of 2023 Dt.22.11.2025 Dinesh