APHC010043262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2633/2026 Between: 1.LANKAPALLI RAJESH, S/O KASULU, AGE. 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6- 11-1, EDARA VILLAGE, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521211. 2.LANKAPALLI JAMALAMMA @ MARIYAMMA,, W/O KASULU AGE. 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6-11-1, EDARA VILLAGE, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521211. 3.LANKAPALLI KASULU,, S/O CHINNA KOTAIAH, AGE. 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6-11-1, EDARA VILLAGE, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521211. 4.BONTHU ARUNA,, W/O ANAND BABU, AGE. 36 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 3- 107/B2, MAIN ROAD, CHEEMALAPADU VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521227. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI. 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IBRAHIMPATNAM POLICE 2 STATION, VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DISTRICT. 5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AGIRIPALLI POLICE STATION, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6.BODA SUSANNA WESLEY, W/O LANKAPALLI RAJESH, R/O DOOR NO.8/421, EELAPROLU (KOTTURU), INDIRA GANDHI STREET, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.04.02.2026 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.V R MAHESWARA RAO PALETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the registration and investigation of FIR No 41 of 2026 dated 19 01 2026 by the Ibrahimpatnam Police Station Vijayawada City NTR District as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct transfer of the said FIR to the Agiripalli Police Station Eluru District which alone has territorial jurisdiction to investigate the alleged incident consequently direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps including arrest against the Petitioners and pass…” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri V.R.Maheswara Rao Paleti, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to declare the registration and investigation of FIR No.41 of 2026 dated 19.01.2026 by Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City, NTR District, as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and consequently to direct transfer 3 of the said FIR to Agiripalli Police Station, Eluru District, which alone has the territorial jurisdiction to investigate the alleged incident, and further to direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps, including arrest, against the Petitioners. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the de- facto complainant is the legally wedded spouse of Petitioner No.1, whose complaint dated 29.12.2025 was lodged before the Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, consequent upon matrimonial discord. It is submitted that after preliminary enquiry and family counselling, the allegations disclosed cognizable offences, thereby warranting registration of Crime No. 41 of 2026 on 19.01.2026 under Sections 109(1), 85, 79, 351(2), 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of ‘the BNS’, together with Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P. Act’, arraying the Petitioners and nine others as accused. The investigation, having already progressed with examination of witnesses and recording of statements under Section 180(3) of ‘the BNSS’, is at a nascent fact- finding stage. 5. It is further submitted that the gravamen of the complaint involves allegations of cruelty, intimidation, and threats, quintessentially triable before the competent criminal court. The plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction is misconceived, as Section 178(c) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and its pari materia provision under Section 198(c) of ‘the BNSS’ confers jurisdiction where an offence is continuing or its consequences ensue at another place. Since the complainant, subjected to continuing cruelty and intimidation, sought refuge within the 4 territorial limits of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, the cause of action partly arose there, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon that station. Accordingly, the registration of the FIR and the ongoing investigation are unimpeachable in law, and all defences urged, whether territorial objections, alleged delay, absence of immediate medical corroboration, or omnibus imputations, are matters for evidentiary appraisal at the appropriate stage, not for interdiction in writ. 6. Indeed, the Respondent No.6 has alleged certain grave allegations attracting the provisions of Sections 109(1), 85, 79, 351(2), 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. However, whether the Petitioners have in fact committed the alleged offences is a matter of evidence and trial, and this Court, cannot embark upon a roving enquiry or conduct a mini trial to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The issues raised by the Petitioners regarding territorial jurisdiction, delay in lodging the complaint, absence of medical corroboration, and omnibus allegations against family members are all debatable matters which require appreciation of evidence and are triable before the competent Court. 7. This Court, upon careful consideration, finds that the delay in lodging the complaint stands sufficiently explained by the de-facto complainant herself, who attributed it to fear, trauma, pressure from elders, and the hope of reconciliation, and such explanations cannot be adjudicated upon without evidence at this preliminary stage. The veracity or falsity of the allegations, including the specific roles and presence of each accused, are quintessentially matters for investigation and trial, not for determination in writ jurisdiction. 5 Since the complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences relating to matrimonial cruelty and threats, which by their very nature constitute continuing offences, the police were legally empowered to register the FIR and commence investigation. It is well settled that objections regarding territorial jurisdiction do not vitiate the FIR, as such issues are procedural and do not render the registration or investigation void, particularly where cognizable offences are disclosed. At the stage of investigation, this Court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry into disputed facts or assess the sufficiency or credibility of the allegations, and an FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold so long as it discloses the commission of cognizable offences. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners to file appropriate petition either for the relief of pre- arrest bail or any other relief in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal1, or the relief of quashment of the proceedings, if so advised. 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: 17.02.2026 VTS 12025 SCC OnLine SC 1494