APHC010122772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6782/2026 Between: Mittapalli Sankara Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA 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 declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not initiating further steps in registering the F I R and conducting investigation on the petitioners complaint Dt 13.01.2026 inspite of repeated requests though there are cognizable offences as nothing but illegal arbitrary highhanded and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgment in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India and consequently direct the Respondents to take action by registering the F I R on the petitioners complaint Dt 13.01.2026 and pass such other order(s)…” 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, despite submission of a representation dated 13.01.2026 by the petitioner, the respondent police have not acted upon the same. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the nature of the dispute pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents is civil in nature. 5. Be that as it may, if any representation made by the petitioner is not being considered by respondents, the petitioner has an alternative, effective, and efficacious remedy under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or under Section 210 read with Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS”), by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate. 6. Thus, there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. If the dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents is civil in nature, the petitioner has another efficacious remedy by filing a suit seeking injunction against the unofficial respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In any event, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedies under both civil and criminal law. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional 3 Magistrate for redressal of his grievance by filing a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ / Section 210 read with Section 223 of „the BNSS‟. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 12.03.2026 KMS 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6782 of 2026 Date: 12.03.2026 KMS 110