Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1720 (AP)

SHAIK RAZIYA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/9015/2026 · 2026-04-07

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010161192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9015/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK RAZIYA, W/O.SK. FAZIL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.12-1682/1, MAHANADU, TADEPALLI ROAD NO.24 GUNTUR DISTRICT - 520007 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.522 50 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.522 503. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ANDHRA PRADESH.533 101. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRGIDESH.533 101. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PRAKASH NAGAR POLICE STATION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. SRI SUBRAHMANYAM, FORMER INSPECTOR OF POLICE / SHO, PRAKASH NAGAR POLICE STATION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.533 103. 2 7. GATTAM PHANINDRA KUMAR A1, S/O. YESEBU, AGED 36 YEARS, D.NO.24-25-42, FLAT T2, RAMA TULASI APARTMENTS, BRTS ROAD, DURGAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-520003. 8. SATYALA SANDHYA RANI A2, W/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D.NO.74-02-18/2, PARIMALAHIGHTS, SAI DURGA NAGAR, AVA ROAD, RAJARAAHENDRAVARAM,.E.G. DISTRICT-533101. 9. SATYALA RAMESH A3, S/O. CHIRAHJEEVI RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D.NO.74-02-18/2, PARIMALA HEIGHTS, SAI DURGA NAGAR, AVA ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, E.G.DISTRICT- 533101. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GANESH GORAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 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 that the investigation conducted in Crime No.269/2017 of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram is biased, defective and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently (b) Direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (or applicable provision under BNSS,2023) by an independent investigating agency (c) Direct the respondents to produce the entire investigation record, including the case diary, for perusal of this Hon'ble court (d) Direct seizure and forensic examination of the petitioner's Samsung Galaxy S6 mobile phone containing primary electronic evidence, which is presently in the custody of the petitioner (e) Direct appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the erring police officers including the then Station House Officer of Prakash Nagar Police Station for their acts of intimidation and for conducting a defective investigation (f) Direct the respondents to preserve all case records and electronic evidence relating to Crime No.269/2017 and to pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3 3. Mr. Ganesh Gorapalli, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the investigation has not been properly conducted by the Investigating Officer. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that, after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the case is coming up for trial before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram. 5. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, requiring the petitioners to avail an alternative efficacious remedy if so advised under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code / Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, by assisting the prosecution. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.04.2026 SSA 4 227 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9015 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 SSA