KURAKULA VENKATA POLAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WP/19885/2024 · 2025-12-19
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 54582 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 54582 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010385992024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 19885 OF 2024 Between:
1. KURAKULA VENKATA POLAIAH, S/o Ramaiah, Aged about 48 years, RTC Employee, R/o. D.No. 5-243 N.G.O. Colony, Venkateswara Nagar, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. 2. GujjulaNarasa Reddy,, S/o Late Chenna Reddy, Aged about 68 years. Retired Employee, R/o. D.No. 4-68, Dibbala Road, SatyanarayapuramOngole Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. KanchigantiaRamaiah,, S/o Velugondaiah, Aged about 63 years, R/o. D.No. 5-243, N.G.O. Colony, Near Power Office, Ongole Town Prakasam District. ...Petitioners AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Inspector of Police, , Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District. Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District. Andhra Pradesh. 5. KakumaniNarayanamma, , w/o Ramalingaiah, Aged about 75 years, R/o. M Nidamanuru Village, Tanguturu, Prakasam District. 6. VardhuSeshaiah, C/o KothaRadha Krishna Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. D.No. 46-159-148, Krishna Nagar, Opposite to Virat Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. 7. BathulaSudhakar, Rao, S/o Kothaiah, Aged about 39 years, R/o.D.No. 6-5- 432, Nallapareddy Colony, Ananthapur Town, Ananthapur District.
...Respondents 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 a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents especially the 4th respondent in calling the petitioners to the police station, at the behest of respondents No.5,6 and 7, without any manner of right and threatening them to settle the civil issue, which is sub judice before the civil Courts, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with in the civil dispute and not to call the petitioners to the police station and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 4 respondent not to call the petitioners to the police station and harass the petitioners by asking them to settle the issue with respondents No.5, 6 and 7 pending civil litigation, pending disposal of the writ
petition, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper, and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 19885 OF 2024 The Court made the following Order:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
“…to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents especially the 4th respondent in calling the petitioners to the police station, at the behest of respondents No.5,6 and 7, without any manner of right and threatening them to settle the civil issue, which is sub judice before the civil Courts, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with in the civil dispute and not to call the petitioners to the police station and pass…”
2.
Heard Ms.AyeshaAzma.S, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.AjayBabu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is a case of interference of police in the civil disputes.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that basing on the complaint of the Kakumani Narayanamma-5th respondent, a case in Cr.No.918 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners was
called to the police station regarding the said crime. The police never interfered in the civil disputes between the parties.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders.
6. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed to follow due process of law regarding the crime which is registered against the petitioner. 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. KKV
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 19885 OF 2024
Dated.20.12.2025
KKV
52
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO: WRIT PETITION NO: 19885 OF 2024 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date
ORDER OFFICE NOTE
2.
20.12.2025
Dr.VJP,J
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
(Vide separate order)
________ Dr.VJP, J KKV