APHC010385722022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24651/2022 Between: 1. MUPPIDI GAYATRI, W/O.SUGGALA U.L.S.J MOHANA RAO, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED. 54 YRS, R/O.FLAT NO.201, RAJAS PRIDE, NEAR OLD VEDRAJ THEATRE, NEAR PATHEBADH RYTHU BAZAR, ELURU-534002. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ELURU. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELURU. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ELURU II-TOWN POLICE STATION, ELURU. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. BANDI SYAM BABU, S/O.ASHIRVADAM, HINDU, MALE, AGED. 45 YRS, R/O.AMARAVATHI NILAYAM, VENNAVALLI VARI PETA, ELURU. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. SMT BANDI MUKKAVILLI RAMA BAI, W/O.SYAM BABU, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED. 38 YRS, R/O.AMARAVATHI NILAYAM, VENNAVALLI VARI PETA, ELURU. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. SALAPAKA RAVI KUMAR, S/O.SATYAM, HINDU, MALE, AGED. 40 YRS, R/O.AMARAVATHI NILAYAM, VENNAVALLI VARI PETA, ELURU. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declaring the action of the respondent police Nos.2 to 4 in calling me in civil dispute to the police station and the respondent-police not followed the procedure contemplated in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and not issued any 41-A Cr.P.0 Notice, without calling my explanation, which is quite illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the 2 Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent police Nos.2 to 4 to issue a 41-A Cr.P.0 notice to me in any FIR in pursuance of the complaint made by the respondents 5 to 7 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS MANCHANAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, by the Petitioner for the following relief: “ ... to declare the action of the respondent police in calling the Petitioner in civil dispute to the police station and the respondent-police not followed the procedure contemplated in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and not issued any 41-A Cr.P.0 Notice, without calling any explanation, which is quite illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondent 2 to 4 to issue a 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the Petitioner in any FIR in pursuance of the complaint made by the respondents 5 to 7 and to pass ...” Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing for respondent State. Perused the material on record. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the challenge in this Writ Petition is that respondent Police did not issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Further, no crime is registered against the Petitioner. It is purely a civil dispute, that is why, respondent Police did not issue any notice to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that recording the said submission, this Writ Petition may be disposed of by passing appropriate orders. In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent Police are directed not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station except under due process of law. No order as to costs. 4 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 07.01.2026 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 24651 of 2022 07.01.2026 Mjl /*