APHC010130272026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7128/2026 Between: 1. CHEPENA LAVANYA, , W/O KARTHIK, AGED 29 YEARS. OCC. BUSINESS, R/O RAMULAVARI STREET, VIJAYAWADA (PERMANENT ADDRESS. NIMMAKAYALA YARD, RTC COLONY, ELURU)-534005 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST-522237. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ELURU II TOWN POLICE STATION, ELURU ELURU DISTRICT- 534006 3. GOVIND POORNA, S/O NOT KNOWN. C/O LAKSHMI LAVANYANA GENERAL STORES BELI BRIDGE, ASILA METTA, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT-534005 4. ENUGULA RAVIKIRAN, S/O LATE MURALIKRISHNA, C/O LAKSHMI LAVANYANA GENERAL STORES BELI BRIDGE, ASILA METTA, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT-534005 5. CHEPENA KARTHIK, S/O LATE MURALIKRISHNA, C/O LAKSHMI LAVANYANA GENERAL STORES BELI BRIDGE, ASILA METTA, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT-534005 6. CHEPANI KUMARI, W/O NOT KNOWN C/O LAKSHMI LAVANYANA GENERAL STORES BELI BRIDGE, ASILA METTA, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT-534005 2 7. VEPATI PRABHAVATAMMA, W/O NOT KNOWN C/O LAKSHMI LAVANYANA GENERAL STORES BELI BRIDGE, ASILA METTA, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT-534005 8. AMARAVATI ASHOK, S/O NOT KNOWN C/O LAKSHMI LAVANYANA GENERAL STORES BELI BRIDGE, ASILA METTA, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT-534005 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARSHA VARDHANA RAO C 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 to declare the inaction of 2nd Respondent for not registering FIR based on the Petitioners complaint of Shop burglary, which is a cognizable offence, though reports submitted to the 2nd Respondent on 19.11.2025, 27.01.2026 and 28.02.2026 respectively as illegal, unconstitutional and violation of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to register a criminal case against 3rd to 8th Respondents and investigate the matter in accordance with the law and to pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. Harsha Vardhana Rao C, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is a discarded wife, she has started a business of running a general stores, the unofficial respondents without any authority have broke open the shop and stolen the valuable articles worth of 3 Rs.11,00,000/- in the general stores. The petitioner has lodged a complaint against the unofficial respondents, but the police have not taken any action. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the police have conducted preliminary enquiry based on the complaint lodged by the father of the petitioner and noticed that it is civil disputes. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, further submits that respondent No.5 and petitioner when were in good terms as wife and husband and opening a kirana store under the name and style of Laskhmi Lavanya General Stores, but later some disputes arose in between the petitioner and respondent No.5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that who is running the shop, who is the owner of the shop are in dispute, which is civil in nature. The Investigating Officer has addressed letters to the Municipal Commissioner and Tahsildhar to know about the ownership details of Lakshmi Lavanya General Stores. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running the shop under the name and style of Lakshmi Lavanya General Stores, she is the owner of the shop and she is running a shop. She only got constructed the shop. The respondent No.5 having addicted to the vices and discarded the petitioner. The petitioner being a lady and blessed with a minor girl is subsisting on the earnings of the shop. 4 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ruchir Rastogi V. Pankaj Rastogi1 wherein at Para Nos.14 & 17, it was held as under: “14. Further, section 457 IPC talks of an offence regarding 'lurking house trespass or house breaking at night to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. Theft committed in any building which is used as a human dwelling or for a custody of a property is punishable under section 380 of the IPC and the sentence for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine. In the present case, there was breaking open of the locks of the premises wherein the property was stored for the purposes of theft, the punishment under section 457 of the IPC would extend to 14 years. 17. For all the reasons recorded above, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Law to take its own course. The matter to proceed with respect to the FIR in question in accordance with law. It is however made clear that any observations made in this order. are only for the purposes of deciding the issue raised and the same may not influence the investigation or the trial which shall proceed independently and be decided on the evidence adduced.” 7. The petitioner on 28.02.2026, lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Eluru. The complaint of the petitioner discloses commission of cognizable offence as she alleges that the valuable articles/commodities kept in general stores were stolen by the unofficial respondents. The respondent No.2 cannot treat the case as civil in nature, on the ground that there is a civil dispute pending in between the petitioner and unofficial respondent. The respondent No.2 is not clear as to what is the nature of civil dispute pending in between the petitioner and unofficial respondents. The respondent No.2 has not even mentioned the case details. The question is whether the alleged valuable articles of the petitioner were stolen by the unofficial respondents or not. The Hon’ble 1 2023 INSC 941 5 Apex Court in Ruchir Rastogi supra categorically held that when the offence is cognizable in nature and punishable under Sections 380, 457 of the I.P.C, the respondent police ought to have registered an First Information Report. The Hon’ble Apex Court even found fault with the impugned Judgment of the High Court. 8. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy under Section 190 read with 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ / Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’ when the complaint is not considered by the Respondent Police 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and following the Judgment of Ruchir Rastogi supra, the Investigating Officer is directed to register the First Information Report against the persons, who have violated the law and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law under the provisions of the BNSS and file appropriate proceedings before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 10. 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: 23.03.2026 SSA/CMK 6 155 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7128 of 2026 Date: 23.03.2026 SSA/CMK