APHC010707762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36713/2025 Between: 1. URLAGUNDA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.11-3-33, 12TH WARD, RAJULA COLONY, SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 522601 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT. 522403 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SATTENAPALLI TOWN P.S., SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT., 522403 5. D POORNACHANDRA RAO, S/O ESWARA CHARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 11-4-36/8, 2ND LANE, RAGHURAM NAGAR, SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT. 522403 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36713/2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent in rejecting the complaint for registering the crime for offences u/s 318(4), 318(2), 319, 79 of BNS against 5th respondent on complaint made by the petitioner on 04-08- 2025 through PGRS on the ground of civil disputes without conducting proper enquiry and without verifying contents of complaint is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principals of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.…” 2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Meher Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a case of non registration of case on the complaint made by the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the petitioner has submitted a representation through PGRS to the Superintendent of Police, which was forwarded to the concerned police. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would further submit that on preliminary enquiry, the police found that the matter is relating to financial disputes. Since, the subject matter is civil in nature, the police have not registered any crime in this matter. 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed the said contention stating that it is case of cheating. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a matter relating to the availability of alternate efficacious remedy provided under Cr.P.C instead of writ remedy, in Writ Appeal No.620 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024, held as follows: “16. In Sudhir Bhaskara Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (supra 4) the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-3 the end result in case High Court entertains writ petitions of the similar nature now covered under appeal, held as follows: “3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. ………. “20. The observations and findings in Lalitha Kumari’s case nowhere enunciate a ratio decidendi that the person aggrieved can avail writ remedy bypassing the alternate efficacious remedy provided in CrPC and what was stated therein is that whenever a police officer receives any complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, he shall register FIR without making any preliminary inquiry. Therefore, the said decision cannot come to the rescue of the appellant in the given set of facts. 21. In view of the above, the learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy available to the writ petitioner is by availing the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but not by way of filing writ petition. The order impugned in this writ appeal 5 requires no interference of this Court. The writ appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.” 7. In the case at hand, as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Police, on receipt of the complaint, after enquiry, having found that the matter is of civil nature, have not registered the crime. In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedies before the appropriate forum according to law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.01.2026. UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36713/2025 Dated.02.01.2026 UPS 139