Gajulapalli Venkata Subba Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/5882/2026 · 2026-03-02
Y Lakshmana Rao
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18357 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18357 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010109532026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5882/2026 Between:
1. GAJULAPALLI VENKATA SUBBA REDDY,, S/O. GAJULAPALLI SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT OF UG IN MBBS, R/O. TIPPARAJUPALLI VILLAGE, PRABHALAVEEDU POST, B.KODUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. CURRENTLY AT RESIDING AT HYDERABAD.
2. GAJULAPALLI SHANKARAMMA,, W/O. GAJULAPALLI SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.
TIPPARAJUPALLI VILLAGE, PRABHALAVEEDU POST, B.KODUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522237.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALGIRI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 522503.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA,
516001.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BADVEL TOWN (U) POLICE STATION Y.S.R DISTRICT, 516227.
2
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BADVEL (U) TOWN POLICE STATION, Y.S.R DISTRICT, 516227.
6. DARAPUNENI RAMPRASAD, S/O. DARAPUNENI NARAYANA AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O. THIKKAVARAM VILLAGE, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
7. RATAKONDA SREENIVASULU, S/O.RATAKONDA VENKATA RATHNAIAH AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R./O.
D.NO.8-3-45, VENKAIAH NAGAR, BADVEL TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT, 516227.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the inaction and illegal interference of the Respondents, more particularly Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 police officers in repeatedly summoning the Petitioners to the police station at the instance of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and coercing them to settle a purely civil dispute arising out of Agreements of Sale entered between the parties. Such conduct is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the settled principles of law, apart from being violative of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the statutory limits on police powers and consequently direct the Respondents not to summon, call, or otherwise interfere with the petitioner for the purpose of settlement of any civil dispute….=
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3
3. Mr.Papudippu Sashidhar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Respondent Nos.4 and 5 police officers have been calling the Petitioners to the police station at the instance of Respondent Nos.6 and 7 and coercing them to settle a purely civil dispute arising out of agreements of sale entered between the parties.
4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that a complaint was lodged by the Respondent No.7 alleging receipt of Rs.85,00,000/- under a sale agreement, which disclosed cognizable elements requiring preliminary enquiry. The Petitioners were only requested to appear for that limited purpose, and no coercive steps have been taken.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the
submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is
disposed of directing the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to further call the Petitioners to the police station unnecessarily without following due process of law. If it is found that the Petitioners have committed any offence, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
6. 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: 03.03.2026 PRA
4
35 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 5882 of 2026
Date: 03.03.2026 PRA