APHC010612142025 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: 31875/2025 Between: 1. MUSIRANA HARI, S/O SAMBAMURTHY (LATE), AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O MCHS (KASPA), NEAR 3 LAMPS JUNCTION, VAKKALANKA VARI VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GJ5J MH9, BUCKINGHAMPETA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH, 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION, VIZIANGARAM DISTRICT. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZIANGARAM II TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM. 7. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZIANGARAM IITOWN POLICE 2 STATION, VIZIANAGARAM. 8. T SRINIVASA RAO, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZIANGARAM II TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM. 9. B MURALI, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZIANGARAM II TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AT DISTRICT TRAINING CENTRE, SARIPALLI, VIZINAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondent No.2 to 5 in initiating criminal and departmental proceedings against Respondent No.8 and 9 as manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, whimsical, capricious, per se illegal, contrary and opposed to Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCfisA) Rules, 1991 and Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 besides being in contravention of Honble Supreme Court guidelines stipulated in Amesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) and violative of Articles 14,19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondent No.2 to 5 to initiate the same in accordance with law and/or 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 The Writ Petition, the petitioner herein respectfully prays that this Honble Court to direct the Respondent No.2 to 5 to pass appropriate orders on Petitioners representation dated 13.10.2025 in accordance with law and/or pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31875 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in initiating criminal and departmental proceedings against Respondent Nos.8 and 9 as manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, whimsical, capricious, per se illegal, contrary and opposed to Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 besides being in contravention of Hon’ble Supreme Court guidelines stipulated in Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) and violative of Articles 14,19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to initiate the same in accordance with law and/or pass..…” 2. Heard Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, 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 brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Magistrate concerned, after satisfying with the reasons for the remand only, sent the Petitioner to the Judicial Custody. It is not a case that the Police Officer has violated the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar1. 4. In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Superintendent of Police/Respondent No.4 is directed to look into the 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273. 4 representation of the Petitioner and take appropriate measures according to Governing Rules and Law, in the light of the fact that the Remand Order passed by the concerned Magistrate is not challenged in this Petition. 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 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.31875 of 2025 Dated.20.11.2025 UPS 110