APHC010532962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 27609/2025 Between: 1. S.K. SAZID, S/O S.K. SAI BABA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 17-13-3, SEETHAMPETA, KRISHNA NAGAR, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. S.K.SINGH, S/O RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O F.NO.29/16, APPM TOWNSHIP,MALLAYYAPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. G.K. KRISHNA RAO, S/O SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O F.20/4, APPM TOWNSHIP,MALLAYYAPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAJAHMUNDRY (URBAN), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ILL-TOWN POLICE STATION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM. 5. CH SURESH, , S/O VISHWANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O FF-2, LAKSHMI PLAZA, TEACHERS COLONY LALITHANAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 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 and 3rd respondents in not acted upon the complaints dated 08.07.2024 05.08.2024 made by the petitioners against the 5th respondent and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Curt in the matter of Lalitha Kumari’s case and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to register the crime against the 5th respondent pursuant to the complaints dated 08.07.2024 and 05.08.2024 lodged by the petitioners and to take appropriate action against the 5th respondent in accordance with law.” 2. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners have been working in A.P.Paper Mills, Rajamahendravaram and are also members of the A.P.P.Mills Employees’ Multipurpose Cooperative Society, which was incorporated to advance loans to its members. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.5 was appointed as C.E.O of the said Society and has been looking after the affairs of the same. Inspite of the requests made by the PIC committee of the Society to submit the records of the Society, Respondent No.5 failed to furnish the same. Learned counsel would further submit that, inspite of the complaints dated 08.07.2024 and 05.08.2024 given by the Petitioners to take action against Respondent No.5 and to collect society books from him, no action has been taken by the Respondents – Police. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that, Police have received the representations of the Petitioners, enquired into the 3 matter and having found that the allegations mentioned in the said complaints are of civil nature, they have not registered the case against Respondent No.5. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, in reply, would submit that, the representation that the subject matter is civil in nature, is not correct. The allegations mentioned in the complaints given by the Petitioners, clearly attract cognizable offence. Learned counsel would finally submit that a direction may be given to the Police to register a case against Respondent No.5. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a matter relating to the availability of alternate efficacious remedy provided under Cr.P.C instead of writ remedy, in Writ Appeal No.620 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024, held as follows: “16. In Sudhir Bhaskara Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (supra 4) the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para- 3 the end result in case High Court entertains writ petitions of the similar nature now covered under appeal, held as follows: “3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. ………. “20. The observations and findings in Lalitha Kumari’s case nowhere enunciate a ratio decidendi that the person aggrieved can avail writ remedy bypassing the alternate 4 efficacious remedy provided in CrPC and what was stated therein is that whenever a police officer receives any complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, he shall register FIR without making any preliminary inquiry. Therefore, the said decision cannot come to the rescue of the appellant in the given set of facts. 21. In view of the above, the learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy available to the writ petitioner is by availing the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but not by way of filing writ petition. The order impugned in this writ appeal requires no interference of this Court. The writ appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.” 7. In the case at hand, as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Police, on receipt of the complaints, after enquiry, having found that the matter is of civil nature, have not registered the crime. In view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and in view of the availability of the alternate efficacious remedy to the Petitioners, as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment referred to supra, it is apposite to dispose of the Writ Petition. However, the Petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. 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:14.10.2025 Note: Issue C.C today B/o. Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.27609 of 2025 Dt.14.10.2025 Dinesh