APHC010135472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7377/2026 Between: 1.MADIGA SANDHYA, W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC LABOUR, R/O. H.NO. 4-861, INDHIRA NAGAR COLONY, ALUR, PO ALUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518395 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALUR POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4.VEERA REDDY, S/O SRINIVAS REDDY, AGE 38 YEARS, OCC R/O.H.NO.4/456. GANDHINAGAR ALUR VILLAGE, ALUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST-518395. 5.SRINIVAS, AGE55 YRS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.H.NO.4/456. GANDHINAGAR ALUR VILLAGE, ALUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST- 518395. 6. 6.N SUNIL, S/O UNKNOWN, AGE45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.4/545 GANDHINAGAR ALUR VILLAGE, ALUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST-518395. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MUSANAPALLI RAKESH 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing Respondents 2 and 3 to take immediATELY action on the complaint submitted by the petitioner against Respondent No 4 5 and 6 Direct the police authorities to register an FIR conduct a proper investigation and provide protection to the petitioner Restrain Respondent No 4 from harassing threatening or circulating any private photographs of the petitioner as arbitrary illegal discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently prays that this Honble Court may be pleased…” 2. Sri Musanapalli Rakesh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition is necessitated by the egregious and contumacious inaction of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, particularly the Station House Officer of Alur Police Station, who, despite receipt of a detailed complaint dated 08.12.2025 disclosing cognizable offences of grave magnitude, has failed to register an FIR or initiate any lawful proceedings, thereby acting in flagrant violation of the binding dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P1. The Petitioner, a law-abiding citizen, has been subjected to relentless harassment, intimidation, and blackmail by Respondent No.4, who, exploiting prior acquaintance, misused her private photographs to coerce and 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 3 threaten her, and with active connivance of Respondent Nos.5 and 6, interfered with her digital evidence, hurled caste-based abuses, and continuously humiliated her in public. The inaction of the police authorities is not merely dereliction of duty but is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, emboldening the wrongdoers and imperilling the Petitioner’s dignity, privacy, and personal liberty. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy and is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a mandamus directing the concerned Station House Officer to forthwith register an FIR and take necessary action in accordance with law. 3. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the allegations of inaction attributed to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are unfounded and misconceived, inasmuch as the police authorities are empowered under law to conduct a preliminary inquiry in cases involving personal disputes, digital communications, and allegations of harassment, so as to ascertain the veracity and nature of the complaint before registration of an FIR, as recognized in Lalita Kumari supra . It is respectfully contended that the Petitioner’s grievance arises out of a private dispute with Respondent No.4, and the authorities have not acted arbitrarily but have exercised their discretion within the permissible contours of law. The plea of violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India is untenable, as the Respondents have neither discriminated against the Petitioner nor abdicated 4 their statutory duties, but are proceeding in accordance with established procedure, thereby rendering the present Writ Petition devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 4. Be that as it may, if the compliant of the Petitioner is not registered by the Station House Officer, as a F.I.R the Petitioner has got an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS.’ 5. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS.’ 6. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 24.02.2026 VTS