APHC010598862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31079/2025 Between: 1. THOTA VINOD, S/O.LATE THOTA SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.6-272, BADE VARI STREET, RAMAVARAPPADU VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP 4. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER CUM STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATAMATA POLICE STATION VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP 5. SMT THOTA NIRMALA, W/O.LATE THOTA SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE C/O. SHASHANK TAPADIA, 11- 49-66, SHIVALAYAM STREET, I TOWN, VIJAYAWADA 6. SMT VISHNU SUNITHA, W/O VISHNU .RAGHUVEER- AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE C/O. SHASHANK TAPADIA, 2 11- 49-66, SHIVALAYAM STREETF I TOWN, VIJAYAWADA. 7. VISHNU RAGHUVEER, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC. PALICE OFFICER C/O. SHASHANK TAPADIA, 11- 49-66, SHIYALAYAM STREET I TOWN, VIJAYAWADA. 8. VISHNU SHALINI, D/O. VISHNU. RAGHUVEER AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, C/O. SHASHANK TAPADIA, 11 - 49-66, SHIVALAYAM STREET, I TOWN,VIJAYAWADA. 9. DR VISHNU ROSHINI, D/O. VISHNU. RAGHOVEER AGED 33 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR C/O. SHASHANK TAPADIA, 11-49-66, SHIVALAYAM STREET, I TOWN, VIJAYAWADA. 10. THOTA KAVITHA, D/O LATE. THOTA SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC. HOUSE WIFE C/O. SHASHANK TAPADIA, 11- 49-66, SHIVALAYAM STREET, I TOWN, VIJAYAWADA. 11. SHASHANK TAPADIA, S/O LATE GOVIND LAL. TAPADIA, AGED ABOUT 24 YRS OCC. BUSINESS C/O. SHASHANK TAPADIA, 11- 49-66, SHIVALAYAM STREET, I TOWN, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus holding the inaction of the respondent no.4 in not registering the case against the Respondent Nos.5 to 11 on complaint dt.02- 11-2024 given by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Sec 173(1) BNSS and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to register the case on complaint given by the petitioner and investigate the case and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to register the case basing on the complaint of the petitioner dt.02-11-2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V YATENDRA KUMAR 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31079 of 2025 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 more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus holding the inaction of the respondent no.4 in not registering the case against the Respondent Nos.5 to 11 on complaint dt.02-11-2024 given by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Sec 173(1) BNSS and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to register the case on complaint given by the petitioner and investigate the case and pass..…” 2. Heard Sri V.Yatendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the Official Respondents. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the Petitioner’s complaint does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence warranting registration of a case against the mother, sister, and in-laws in relation to the alleged suspicious death of the Petitioner’s father. On enquiry, the Police found that the issue arises out of a family dispute between the Petitioner on one side and his mother and sisters on the other and that is why, the Police have not registered any crime. 4. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a matter relating to the availability of alternate efficacious remedy provided under 5 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 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.” 5. 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 held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment referred 6 to supra, it is apposite to dispose of the Writ Petition. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 6. 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 pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.11.2025. UPS 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.31079 of 2025 Dated.20.11.2025 UPS 121