APHC010064082026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3633/2026 Between: 1. SRI KOKKERA KONDALA RAO @ PEDDA KONDALU, S/O K. HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O THANDA BAZAR, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522413. 2. SRI KOKKERA GANGA RAJU,, S/O K. KONDALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O THANDA BAZAR, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522413. 3. SRI KOKKERA KOTESWARARAO,, S/O K. KONDALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O THANDA BAZAR, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522413. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NARASARAOPETA, GUNTUR NOW PALANADU DISTRICT - 522601. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPETA GUNTUR NOW PALANADU DISTRICT - 522601. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GURAZALA GUNTUR NOW PALANADU DISTRICT - 522415. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA POLICE STATION, 2 PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR NOW PALANADU DISTRICT - 522413. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIDUGURALLA POLICE STATION, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR NOW PALANADU DISTRICT - 522413. 7. SRI KOKKERA KONDALU, S/O GURAVAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR NOW PALANADU DISTRICT - 522413. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 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 a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents, more specifically Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, in interfering with the petitioners peaceful life by calling, summoning, and harassing the petitioners and their family members, without there being any crime registered against the petitioners, at the instance of the 7th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 not to summon, interfere with, or harass the petitioners or their family members in any manner, except in accordance with due process of law…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are calling the Petitioners to the police station without there being any crime registered against them, at the instance of Respondent No.7, and compelling them to depose hostile evidence in S.C.No.393 of 2024 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurajala. 4. Per contra, Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Petitioner No.1 is a witness in Crime No.112 of 2023 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 307, and 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’) by the Station House Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, against Respondent No.7 as Accused No.1 along with five others. It is further submitted that there is a dispute with regard to the management of Gangammatalli Temple in Piduguralla between two different groups. The first Petitioner sent a report through registered post to the Station House Officer, 4 Piduguralla Police Station (Respondent No.5), stating that Respondent No.7 has been threatening the Petitioner and his family members with dire consequences, subjecting them to mental agony, and that Respondent No.7 made a false case against his sons vide Crime No.135 of 2025. 5. On perusal of the record, the case in Crime No.112 of 2023 has culminated in S.C.No.393 of 2024 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurajala, and the same is pending for trial. When a case which is non- compoundable in nature under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C’) is pending against Respondent No.7 and others, Respondent No.5 has no authority to insist that the Petitioners compromise the case by giving hostile evidence. If a case is compoundable, there may be justification to call for negotiations for compounding, but that too only subject to the willingness of the complainant who lodged the case. Respondent No.5 has no authority to summon the Petitioners or compel them to give hostile evidence in S.C. No.393 of 2024 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurajala. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No.5 not to call further the Petitioners, insist upon them, or compel them to give hostile evidence or to compromise a non-compoundable case in S.C.No.393 of 2024 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurajala, at the behest of Respondent No.7. 5 7. Accordingly, 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: 18.02.2026 PRA 6 171 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3633 of 2026 Date: 18.02.2026 PRA