APHC010129932026 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: 6897/2026 Between: 1. GUNTUPALLI MIHIRA TEJA,, S/O GUNTUPALLI VEERA BHADRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, MARAM INFRA PRO, SY. NO. 11/A, CHANDRAPURI COLONY, LB NAGAR, BAHADURGUDA, K.V. RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA-500 074. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533201. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATHREYAPURAM POLICE STATION, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533201. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJANI NELAKUDITI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 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 particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent Police in calling the petitioner frequently to the Police station unnecessarily without there being registration of any crime as illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 in Part III of the Constitution of India, and violates the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondents not to call the petitioner unnecessarily to the police station without following due procedure established by the law and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. Rajani Nelakuditi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent police, who have been continuously calling the petitioner to the police station and subjecting him to harassment. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that one Subbaraju lodged a report against the petitioner, the respondent police conducted preliminary enquiry and noticed that there was some cognizable offence committed. Therefore, the police registered a case in Cr.No.44 of 2026 for the alleged offence U/s 318(4) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For brevity ‘the BNS’) against the petitioner and took up the investigation. With regard to that aspect, the petitioner was 3 called to police station. The petitioner was never harassed by the police. The petitioner is bound to oblige the instructions of the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation 5. Be that as it may, when a case was registered against the petitioner, the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy of filing petition under the provisions of the Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for appropriate relief. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the investigating Officer to follow section 35 (5) of ‘the BNSS’ and the petitioner shall cooperate the investigating officer in that regard. The Investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of investigation. 7. 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: 23.03.2026 SSA/CMK 4 163 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6897 of 2026 Date: 23.03.2026 RSI