APHC010119052022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7018/2022 Between: AKULA SUBRAHMANYAM, AKULA SUBRAHMANYAM S/O. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, AGE- 34 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED LEADING SEAMAN (INDIAN NAVY), R/O.64-1-30/A1, OPP- BHARATHI MEDICALS, SRIHARIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 530 011. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDRHA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR RURAL DISTRICT, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, , 13TH WARD, SATYANNARAYANA PURAM, BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522101. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VEMURU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN 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: 2 “.... a Writ of Mandamus i)declaring the action of the 5th respondent in not registering crime against the petitioner's wife Mrs. Venkata Lavanya, father-in-law Mr. Gopisetti Narasimha Rao, mother-in-law Mrs. Gopisetti Varalakshmi and bother-in-law Mr. Gopisetti Sai Krishna Rio. Chavali, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District on the strength of the police compliant dt.25-10-2021 given by petitioner's wife against petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative besides violative of Sec.3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and violative of the Art.14 of the Constitution of India, and ii)consequently, direct the 5th respondent to register a crime against the petitioner's wife Mrs. Venkata Lavanya, father-in-law Mr. Gopisetti Narasimha Rao, mother-in-law Mrs. Gopisetti Varalakshmi and bother-in- law Mr. Gopisetti Sai Krishna R/o. Chavali, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District on the strength of the police compliant dt.25-10-2021 given by petitioner's wife against petitioner.” 2. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.Faroow, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is facing the allegations for the offence under Section 498-A IPC in Crime No.135 of 2021 on the file of Vemuru Police Station, Guntur, basing on the complaint given by his wife. Learned counsel would further submit that, when the Petitioner has given a complaint to the Police against his wife and father-in-law, but the Police did not respond to register the case. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the Petitioner has given such complaint against his wife and father-in-law only to get over the case registered against him. It is further submitted that the investigation in Crime No.135 of 2021 on the file of Vemuru Police Station, Guntur has been completed, charge sheet has been filed, numbered as C.C.No.881 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali and the Court has also taken cognizance of the offence against the Petitioner and the same is pending for consideration before the 3 trial Court. It is submitted that, since the Petitioner made false allegations against his wife and her family members to get over the case registered against him, the Police have not registered any case against the wife and father-in-law of the Petitioner. 5. Considering the submissions made, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the version of the Petitioner’s wife is that her father has given dowry and the denial on the part of the Petitioner about the same is pending consideration before the competent Court, where the case is pending. It is the domain of the Police to register a case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 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. ………. 4 “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 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 view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and in view of the availability of the alternate efficacious remedy to the Petitioner, as was observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment referred to supra, it is apposite to dispose of the Writ Petition. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 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:13.11.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.7018 of 2022 Dt.13.11.2025 Dinesh