APHC010009202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 795/2026 Between: 1. KODURU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE RAMARAO AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.3-32, MANGALA BAZAR, PIDUGURALLA TOWN, PALNADU DISTRICT. 2. KODURU LAXMI JYOTHI, W/O.SRINIVASA RAO AGED 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE R/O.D.NO.3-32, MANGALA BAZAR, PIDUGURALLA TOWN, PALNADU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AP POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI 522502 3. THE DIG OF POLICE, GUNTUR RANGE. SOUTH COASTAL ZONE NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR 522004 4. THE IG OF POLICE, GUNTUR, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR 522004 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPETA 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GURAJALA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 7. MR SRIRAM VENKATARAO, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PIDUGURALLA POLICE STATION, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 8. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA POLICE STATION, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 9. KOTHA VENKATA SUBBARAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN AGED 65 YEARS, OCC. MUNICIPAL CHAIRMAN. PIDUGURALLA MUNICIPALITY, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU 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 more particularly one in the 2 nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the high handed action of the respondent Nos. 7 and inaction of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, in taking suitable action against illegal detention, police interference in the civil issues, in accordance with law, as illegal, irrational, contrary to law, against to the Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Art. 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to take immediate action against the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. AMARENDRA JILLELLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, by the Petitioners for the following relief: “ ... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the high handed action of the respondent No.7 and inaction of the respondents 5 and 6, in taking suitable action against illegal detention, police interference in the civil issues, in accordance with law, as illegal, irrational, contrary to law, against to the Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to take immediate action against the respondents 7 and 8 and pass ...” Heard Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amarendra Jillela, learned counsel for the Petitioners on record and Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent State. Perused the material on record. Learned Government Pleader for Home on instructions would submit that on 27.12.2025 one Kanamarlapudi Ramakrishna and others lodged a complaint against the Petitioner herein and his brothers alleging that they are carrying on business under the name and style “Balaji Brokers” and that the complainant had extended credit to them and that Petitioners are not responding to his phone calls and petitioners’ whereabouts are not known to him. Further, respondent Police made a General Diary entry and no case is registered against the Petitioners. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that respondent Police never summoned or detained the petitioners in the Police Station and requested to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing appropriate orders. 4 Learned Senior Counsel would submit that respondent Police are calling the Petitioners to the Police station and subjected them to illegal custody without there being any reason. Based on the false complaint given by the said Kanamarlapudi Ramakrishna and others, respondent Police are harassing the Petitioners with high handed behaviour. Further, respondent Police are interfering in the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and others. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that let there be a direction to respondent Police not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners by calling them to Police Station and dispose of the Writ Petition by passing appropriate orders. As can be seen from the material on record, it would reveal that no crime is registered against the Petitioners so far, except making a General Diary Entry based on the complaint given by the said Kanamarlapudi Ramakrishna and others. In that view, it is apposite to direct respondent Police not to call the Petitioners to the Police Station and not to take any coercive steps against them with regard to the subject matter, except under due process of law. Coming to the allegations made against the Police Officers are concerned, regarding illegal detention of the Petitioners, Petitioners are at liberty work out their remedy before appropriate forum according to law. However, it does not preclude respondent Police to enquire into the complaint submitted by Sri Kanamarlapudi Ramakrishna and others. 5 With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 07.01.2026 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 795 of 2026 07.01.2026 Mjl /*