APHC010217352026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11812/2026 Between: 1. KAKANI PUNNAIAH, S/O. PEDDA VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. DOOR NO. 4-93, SC COLONY, BOGGARAM POST, H/O. KONDAYAPALEM VILLAGE, IPURU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P.-522238. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT-522601. 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT-522601. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IPURU POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT-522658. 5. CHINTHA HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. PERAIAH, R/O. BOGGARAM POST, H/O. KONDAYAPALEM VILLAGE, IPURU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522658. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMESH BABU NELATURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 4th Respondent police personal in registering an FIR, completing the investigation and filing of charge sheet against the criminal complaint lodged by the petitioner herein on 02.03.2026 before 2nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and violation of Art.21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to register an FIR against the 5th respondent vide Grievance No. PLND202603026536, complete the investigation and file charge sheet in a fixed time frame and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri N.Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition is necessitated by the patent and culpable inaction of the Respondent No.4 police personnel, who, despite receipt of a criminal complaint dated 02.03.2026 and subsequent representations, have failed to register an FIR, undertake investigation, and file a charge sheet against the Respondent No.5, thereby rendering the grievance of the Petitioner wholly unaddressed. It is urged that the Petitioner, a native of Boggaram Village and presently residing at Hyderabad, was subjected to assault and abuse in public view by Respondent No.5, resulting in blood injuries, yet the police authorities, notwithstanding repeated approaches and forwarding of representations by higher revenue officials, have remained inert and indifferent. The Petitioner, therefore invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, and consequently directing registration of FIR against Respondent No.5, 3 completion of investigation, and filing of charge sheet within a fixed time frame, so as to uphold the rule of law and secure justice. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the allegations advanced by the Petitioner are wholly misconceived, inasmuch as the Respondent No.4 police have duly acted upon the report lodged on 11.02.2026 by making an entry in the General Diary and, treating the matter as cognizable, sought and obtained permission from the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer, Narasaraopet, to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of ‘the BNSS’. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent police examined nine witnesses, including responsible Government Officers such as the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, and recorded their detailed statements. The enquiry revealed that while a quarrel did occur between the complainant and Respondent No.5, the allegation of caste‑based abuse was not corroborated by any witness, including the officials present, and the dispute was found to emanate from prior civil land issues and personal enmity. Thus, the complaint was not substantiated, and the allegations of inaction or arbitrariness on the part of the police are baseless, incorrect, and misconceived. It is therefore urged that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the above and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate, if aggrieved, by way of filing a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the 4 Cr.P.C.,’ / Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’ challenging the findings of the Investigating Officer. 6. On filing of such private complaint by the Petitioner before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to bestow his attention to the same and deal with the complaint in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.04.2026 VTS