1 WA_371_2026 APHC010158202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3579] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX WRIT APPEAL No: 371 of 2026 Between: 1. M.ARUNA, W/o. M.KESAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC :HOUSEWIFE, R/o. FLAT No.509, YAGANTI PARK, HAAILAND ROAD, CHINAKAKANI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. PIN 522 503. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ARUNDALPET POLICE STATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM:- THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.JUSTICE LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE:- 5th May, 2026. ****** Present: Mr.M Kesava Rao, Advocate for appellant Government Pleader for Home for respondents. 2 WA_371_2026 The Court made the following Judge: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) The petitioner in W.P.No.25793 of 2025 aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge dated 24.09.2025, filed the present appeal. 2. Grievance in the writ petition is inaction of respondent No.3 in taking any action on the complaints made by petitioner on different dates and non- registration of F.I.R. 3. As per contents of complaints, petitioner being persuaded by staff of M/s.Perumallu Capital City, paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 02.03.2019 and reserved a Flat bearing No.314 in 3rd Floor of Residential Complex in Perumallu Capital City, situated at Endroy Village, Guntur District. Subsequently, believing the words of one Mr.Nagesh and Mr.Manikanta that at their behest, the Managing Director reduced cost of flat by Rs.2 lakhs and as per their request, petitioner made part payment of Rs.80,000/- to them out of Rs.1 lakh in view of benefit in reduction of flat cost. Petitioner intended to make payment of first installment, but there was no response from the said persons. She visited office of M/s.Corporate Associates, who undertook construction of flats. However, petitioner found that the office was closed. As acts and deeds of Managing Director of Corporate Associates exhibits intention of cheating and some other persons like petitioner were lured and cheated by collecting amounts in the name of construction of flats, thorough investigation in the matter and appropriate criminal action against the persons / culprits was sought. In the complaint, petitioner also furnished the names and phone numbers of the Managing Director and staff. 3 WA_371_2026 4. Learned Single Judge on the basis of instructions furnished by respondents to the learned Government Pleader, disposed of writ petition vide Order dated 24.09.2025, relevant portion of which reads as follows: “3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader on written instructions would submit that basing on the petition filed by the petitioner herein through Spandana before the Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, the Station House Officer, Arundalpet called both parties for preliminary enquiry. After due enquiry it has come to light that, there is a civil dispute between the parties. As the matter is purely civil in nature, the police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties. 4. Recording the same, this writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. “ 5. Learned counsel for appellant / writ petitioner mainly contends that disposal of writ petition on the basis of instructions, a copy of which was not made available to petitioner / appellant is not just or tenable. He submits that nature of allegations in the complaints, warrants initiation of criminal action, which the respondents failed to initiate by registering a F.I.R., that without considering the matter in proper perspective, learned Single Judge erred in disposing of writ petition opining that the matter is purely civil in nature. He further submits that a copy of the report of police authorities which was furnished to him pursuant to orders dated 24.04.2026 would clearly indicate that enquiry of police revealed that M/s.Coporate ventures, collected amounts by entering into agreement with petitioner and others, that office of M/s.Corporate ventures at 10/3rd line, Arundalpet is closed and whereabouts of its Director Mr.Chaitanya are not known. Further as per report, efforts are being made to know his 4 WA_371_2026 whereabouts and it will take some time to nab him. Therefore, learned counsel submits that it is a clear-cut case where police are under a legal obligation to initiate criminal action and disposal of writ petition with conclusions as if the matter is purely civil in nature, causes irreparable prejudice and come in the way of availing remedies by petitioner, in accordance with the Law. Accordingly, he seeks appropriate orders by setting aside learned Single Judge’s Order. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home raises a preliminary objection about maintainability of the appeal in view of Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rama Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana & Ors.,1. However, she has not refuted contentions of learned counsel for appellant that whereabouts of Managing Director of the Corporate Venture are unknown as yet and police authorities are making an effort to trace him. Copy of written instructions received by her are taken on record, subject to just exceptions. 7. This Court has considered submissions made and perused material on record. 8. At the outset, there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rama Kishan Fauji’s case wherein it was held that no intra-Court appeal lie against order of Learned Single Judge passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. We take note of the fact that what is noted in impugned order dated 24.09.2025 are the written instructions at that time with learned Government Pleader to the effect that 1 AIR 2017 SC 1535 5 WA_371_2026 authorities found the matter to be purely civil in nature due to which police are not interfering. At this stage it is to be noted that Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 categorically held that in such like situation, aggrieved can avail the remedy available to him under the then Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the answer. 9. In view of above, ultimate decision of Court would remain the same. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to ensure complete justice, we deem it appropriate to clarify that recording stand of the respondent in order dated 24.09.2025 to the effect of dispute being purely civil in nature shall be of no consequence upon rights of appellant while pursing remedies available to her. 10. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed with above said clarification. This order shall not be treated to be a precedent. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. (LISA GILL) (NINALA JAYASURYA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Date:05.05.2026 BLV 2 AIR 2008 SC 907 6 WA_371_2026 THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT APPEAL No:371 OF 2026 Date: 05.05.2026 BLV