APHC010043502026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. KOLLURU VENKATA KRISHNA MOHAN, S/O KOLLURU SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O 27/3/2318, NTR NAGAR, NEAR CPM OFFICE, NELLORE. 2. KOLLURU JAHNAVI,, D/O KOLLURU SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O 27/3/2318, NTR NAGAR, OFFICE, NELLORE. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524001. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BALAJI NAGAR POLICE STATION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 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 topleased to issue a Writ or orders more particularly one in the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2614/2026 KOLLURU VENKATA KRISHNA MOHAN, S/O KOLLURU SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O 27/3/2318, NTR NAGAR, NEAR CPM OFFICE, NELLORE. KOLLURU JAHNAVI,, D/O KOLLURU SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O 27/3/2318, NTR NAGAR, NEAR CPM ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, - 522238. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524001. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BALAJI NAGAR POLICE STATION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524001. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ or orders more particularly one in the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO KOLLURU VENKATA KRISHNA MOHAN, S/O KOLLURU SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O 27/3/2318, NTR KOLLURU JAHNAVI,, D/O KOLLURU SREENIVASULU, AGED NEAR CPM ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, SPSR THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BALAJI NAGAR POLICE STATION, ...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 topleased to issue a Writ or orders more particularly one in the 2 nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner and summoning the petitioner to the police station otherwise than due process of law and threatening to sign the documents as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners life and liberty by summoning the petitioner either to respondent office or to police station without following due process of law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s life and liberty by summoning the petitioner to police station without following due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been field under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief” “...to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioners and summoning the petitioner to the police station otherwise than due process of law and threatening to sign the documents as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners life and liberty by summoning the petitioner either to respondent office or to police station without following due process of law and pass..” 2. Heard Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home. 3. Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the police are illegally interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioners by summoning them to the police station without following due process of law and by threatening them to sign on documents. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that one Puvvadi Supriya lodged a report on 07.12.2025, it was registered as a case in Crime No.225 of 2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the file of Balaji Nagar Police Station (Respondent No.4). He further submits that, in the course of investigation, Respondent No.4 examined the complainant and recorded her statement. As of now, the petitioners have neither been examined nor called to the police station, and no material has been collected 4 to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners. It is contended that Respondent No.4 has strictly followed the due process of law. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy available under law, either by filing an application for pre-arrest bail or by approaching the appropriate court seeking quashing of the FIR. The Investigating Officer would not summon any person for enquiry without there being any basis or concrete proof indicating his or her involvement in the alleged offence as an accused or a witness. It is further noticed that no case has been registered against the 2nd petitioner. It is furthermore noticed that respondent No.4 or any other police officer has not summoned her to the police station in any manner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 to strictly follow due process of law while dealing with the petitioner in connection with the investigation in Crime No.225 of 2025. The petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 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: 31.01.2026 KKV