APHC010109022026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6096/2026 Between: 1. CHOPPERLA PRAMILA, W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 47 YRS. SWARNA JEWELLARY MART, D.NO.1-1, OPP. LAKSHMI THEATRE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM-534447. ELURU DISTRICT. 2. CH. LAKSHNNINARAYANA, S/O LATE BANGARRAJU AGED 48 YRS.SWARNA JEWELLARY MART, D.NO.1-1, OPP. LAKSHMI THEATRE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM-534447. ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. VELAGAPUDI- 522503.GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU- 534006. 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER DSP, JANGAREDDYGUDEM-534447. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM-534447. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM-534447. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. DUGGIRALA NAGARAJU, S/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YRS. COCONUT BUSINESS/DRIVER R/O VEGAVARAM-534455. 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6096 of 2026 Dated 09.03.2026 JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL. ELURU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not acting upon the complaint of the 1st petitioner Dt 20.02.2026 and not rendering necessary police protection as against the illegal and highhanded acts of the 6th respondent and his fellowmen in blackmailing the petitioners to extract money by illegal means and to cause damage to the shop of the petitioners etc as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently order directing the respondents 2 to 5 to take necessary action on the complaint of the 1st petitioner Dt 20.02.2026 and render necessary police protection and pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not acting upon the complaint of petitioner No.1 dated 20.02.2026 and are not rendering necessary police protection as against the illegal and highhanded acts of respondent No.6 and his fellowmen 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6096 of 2026 Dated 09.03.2026 in blackmailing the petitioners to extract money by illegal means and cause damage to the shop of the petitioners. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 21.02.2026 to respondent No.5. Upon receipt of the said representation, respondent No.5 has initiated a preliminary enquiry in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the complaint dated 20.02.2026 contains allegations against the 6th respondent and certain other persons alleging intimidation, use of abusive language, unlawful interference with the petitioners’ business premises and demand for return of alleged pledged gold ornaments. It is further submitted that mere receipt of a representation or complaint does not automatically entitle the petitioners to grant of police protection as a matter of course. Police protection cannot be granted mechanically or as a routine measure without proper assessment of the ground situation and existence of a real and imminent threat. 5. In this regard, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar1, wherein at paragraph Nos.17 and 19 it is held as under: 17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction 1 (2006) 4 SCC 501 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6096 of 2026 Dated 09.03.2026 passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a h properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this a nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. 19. A writ for "police protection" so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order. 6. Thus, in P.R. Murlidharan supra, it is held that a writ petition seeking police protection under Article 226 cannot be used to decide disputed civil rights such as property or possession that have not yet been adjudicated by a Civil Court. Such protection can be granted only to enforce rights already declared by a Civil Court decree or order, not to establish those rights in the first place. 7. In view of the above legal position, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the learned jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 210 read with Section 223 of ‘the BNSS’ or to file a suit against the private persons for appropriate remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6096 of 2026 Dated 09.03.2026 8. In the result, 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: 09.03.2026 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6096 of 2026 Dated 09.03.2026 48 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6096 of 2026 Date: 09.03.2026 RSI