APHC010091922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5084/2026 Between: 1. KODURU ATCHUTHA SURESH BABU,, S/O. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC MECHANIC, R/O. 8-8-1, KUMMARI PET NARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM - 534201. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARSAPURAM DIVISION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 537275. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARSAPURAM TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 537275. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARSAPURAM POLICE STATION, NARSAPURAM TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 537275. 6. KAKARA VIJAYA NIRMALA, W/O. UNKNOWN, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 8-6-1/1, NARASAPURAM TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 537275. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GARSIKUTI SRI RAJA VARDHAN 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 the action of Respondents, particularly Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 at the instance of the 6th respondent in repeatedly calling petitioners to the Police Station and compelling him to yield to the illegal demands of the 6th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere in any manner with his personal life and liberty…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. G. Sri Raja Vardhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the grievance of the Petitioner is that the police are interfering in the family dispute and creating disturbance. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.6 has submitted a complaint, based on which the respondent police conducted a preliminary enquiry and found that the complaint was non‑cognizable in nature. 5. There is a family/matrimonial dispute between Respondent No.6 and the Petitioner. Nevertheless, unless the alleged complaint discloses a cognizable case, the police are not supposed to call the Petitioners to the Police Station and conduct any kind of preliminary enquiry. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent Nos.4 and 5 henceforth not to call the Petitioners to the Police Station unnecessarily at the behest of Respondent No.6. However, it is made clear that if Respondent No.6 lodges a complaint in future disclosing a cognizable offence, the respondent police may proceed against the Petitioners in accordance with law. 7. 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 Dated: 05.03.2026 PRA 4 78 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5084 of 2026 Date: 05.03.2026 PRA