Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2794 (AP)

Ramanaiah Prathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/15142/2026 · 2026-06-03

A Hari Haranadha Sarma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010288512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 15142/2026 Between: 1. RAMANAIAH PRATHI, S/O PRATHI OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK, TANGUTUR BRANCH, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PIN-522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. PIN-518001 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTIKONDA POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. PIN-518380 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTIKONDA POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. PIN-518380 ...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 issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high-handed action of the 3rd respondent in continuously harassing the petitioner, threatening him over phone, visiting his former workplace at Nehru Nagar Branch, Kurnool, and compelling him to settle a private dispute without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary unjust contrary to the procedure established by law and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal liberty, employment, and peaceful life of the petitioner except in accordance with due process of law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following the order:- The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the 3rd respondent in continuously harassing the petitioner threatening him over phone visiting his former workplace at Nehru Nagar Branch Kurnool and compelling him to settle a private dispute without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary unjust contrary to the procedure established by law and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal liberty employment and peaceful life of the petitioner except in accordance with due process of law and pass…” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the interference of the police, particularly respondent Nos.3 and 4, in respect of a private dispute. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the basis of written instructions, submits that the respondents/ police are not interfering in the civil dispute. However, the petitioner is Accused No.1 in Crime No.73 of 2026 on the file of Pathikonda Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Therefore, insofar as the allegations raised against the petitioner in the aforesaid crime are concerned, the respondents/ police are directed to follow the due process of law. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. The written instructions furnished by the respondents shall form part of the record. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Dated: 04.06.2026 JLSR 25 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA W.p.No.15142 of 2026 Dated: 04.06.2026 JLSR