APHC010489602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26033/2025 Between: SAKE ROJA, D/O.SAKE ANAND, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, HINDU, SC COLONY, D.NO. 1/123, LATHAVARAM VILLAGE, URAVAKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIATE VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DIG OF POLICE, ANANTHAPURAM RANGE ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 3. ANBU RAJAN, S/O. NOT KNOWN AGED 48 YEARS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT 4. PRASAD REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN AGED 50 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT 5. SIVARAMUDU, S/O. NOT KNOWN AGED 49 YEARS. CL OF POLICE, II TOWN POLICE STATION ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY IN PERSON Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. THANJAVURU VENKATA SUMAN 3. M RAVINDRA 4. SRINIVAS BASAVA The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus in Cr.No. 111/2024 SC/ST Case, r/w 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), 307, 354, 166, 324, 506, 509, 34 IPC non bailable offence and IPC section 307 below ten years punishment. Please direct to DIG of Police (2nd respondent) that, send Respondent/Accused 3 to 5 to remand. As illegally, arbitrary unconstitutional unjustice and violate of article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India.” 2. Heard Ms.Sake Roja, Petitioner / Party-in-Person and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Petitioner / Party-in-Person would submit that, she filed a private complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C before the Court of Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, which is registered as a case in Crime No.111 of 2024 on the file of Anantapuram II Town Police Station, Ananthapuram for the offences under Sections 307, 354, 166, 324, 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act against Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein. It is further submitted that on 12.06.2025, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Respondent No.2 to take Respondent Nos.3 to 5 into remand, however, no action has been taken against them. It is further submitted that, since Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are threatening the Petitioner, she could not appear and give her statement and the same was also informed to Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the failure to act even after a written representation dated 12.06.2025 submitted by the 3 Petitioner, requesting that Respondent Nos.3 to 5 be taken into judicial remand, amounts to willful dereliction of duty and abuse of official position. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that, arrest is not a matter of right, nor can this Hon’ble Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, compel the investigating agency to arrest Respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is further submitted that pursuant to the private complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a case in Cr.No.111 of 2024 was registered on 03.08.2024 on the file of Ananthapuramu II Town Police Station for the alleged offences. Immediately after registration of the crime, Respondent No.2 appointed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kadiri, as the Investigation Officer, strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that from the very beginning of the investigation, the Petitioner has not cooperated with the investigating agency. Inspite of issuance of statutory notices under Sections 90 and 160 Cr.P.C., and subsequently under Sections 94 and 179 of BNSS, calling upon the Petitioner to appear and give her statement, she failed to appear. It is submitted that on 17.08.2024, when the Petitioner herself contacted the Investigation Officer, she was requested to inform a convenient date for recording her statement. However, she refused to give her statement and only insisted upon immediate arrest of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, which cannot Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that despite the non-cooperation of the petitioner, the Investigation Officer proceeded with the 4 investigation by visiting the scene of offence on 21.08.2024, examining witnesses, and recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that even after issuance of specific directions by Respondent No.2 to examine the petitioner and collect material evidence, repeated notices were issued to the Petitioner, but she refused to receive the same and continued to avoid the investigation. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that, upon transfer of the earlier Investigation Officer, a new Investigation Officer, namely the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Hindupur, was appointed on 13.05.2025. Even thereafter, notices were sent through post and telephonic intimation was given to the Petitioner, requesting her cooperation. However, the Petitioner still did not come forward. It is submitted that the investigation has not stalled due to any inaction on the part of the police, but solely due to the deliberate non-cooperation of the Petitioner. Without the statement of the complainant and supporting material, the investigation cannot progress to the stage of arrest. It is submitted that arrest is not automatic merely because the offences alleged are non-bailable. At this stage, there are no grounds to arrest Respondent Nos.3 to 5, as alleged by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, instead of cooperating with the investigation and availing remedies available under law, has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking a direction for arrest, which amounts to an abuse of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5 5. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that despite addressing a representation dated 12.06.2025 to Respondent No.2 requesting arrest and remand of Respondent Nos.3 to 5, no action has been taken. According to the Petitioner, such inaction amounts to willful dereliction of duty and abuse of official position. 6. It is a settled principle of law that arrest is not automatic and does not flow merely from the registration of a crime or from the fact that the alleged offences are non-bailable. Arrest is a facet of investigation and depends upon several factors, including availability of prima facie material, necessity for custodial interrogation, and the satisfaction of the investigating officer. In the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the manner, method or stage of investigation, nor can it compel the Police to arrest particular individuals, unless there is a clear case of mala fide or abuse of power, which is not made out in the present case. 7. The material placed on record discloses that the investigation in Crime No.111 of 2024 has been taken up promptly and is being conducted in accordance with law. The delay, if any, cannot be attributed to inaction on the part of the Police authorities. On the contrary, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner herself has not cooperated with the investigation, despite repeated statutory notices and opportunities. Without the statement of the Complainant and supporting material, the investigation cannot logically progress to a stage warranting arrest of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein. The 6 mere submission of a representation dated 12.06.2025 seeking arrest of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5, does not cast a legal obligation on the investigating agency to effect arrest forthwith. 8. The explanation offered by the Petitioner that she could not appear and give her statement due to alleged threats from Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, is not supported by any cogent material or independent evidence. In the absence of such substantiation, it can be construed that the proceedings are initiated by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioners by a personal vendetta. However, the Petitioner can seek protection or redressal by invoking the remedy available under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to be examined at her residence. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh1, while dealing with registration of FIRs, also clarified that registration of a case does not ipso facto mandate arrest, and that arrest depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that arrest is not automatic even in cognizable and non-bailable offences, and that unnecessary arrests violate Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Police to arrest and remand Accused persons in a pending investigation, particularly when the complainant herself has not 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 2 (2014) 8 SCC 273 7 cooperated with the investigation and no mala fides are established against the investigating agency. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present and the in the light of the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is premature and misconceived, and the relief sought, if granted, would amount to unwarranted interference in the investigative domain of the Police. The writ petition lacks merit and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that, if the Petitioner cooperates with the investigating agency and produces any material in her possession, the investigation in Crime No.111 of 2024 on the file of Anantapuram II Town Police Station, Ananthapuram shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:05.01.2026 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26033 of 2025 Dt.05.01.2026 Dinesh