APHC010689712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 41 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-9 [3584] Dr. A Varaprasad Reddy ...Appellant Vs. The State of AP and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant(s): Mr. V. R. Reddy Kovvuri Advocate for Respondent(s): GP for Home CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 16th July, 2026. P C : Prayer in this writ appeal is for setting aside order dated 27.11.2025 passed by learned Single Bench, whereby writ petition filed by present appellant was disposed of directing writ petitioner to approach the police authorities and furnish all relevant documents as required. 2. Police authorities were further directed to conduct and conclude the enquiry expeditiously and take further action in accordance with law. Hence aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argues that impugned order has been incorrectly passed and is in teeth of settled principles of law. Reference is made to Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.,(2014) 2 SCC 1, State HCJ & CGRJ WA_41_2026 of Karnataka vs. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, 2025 INSC 229 and Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.2025 of 2025 (decided on 17.03.2025), to submit that a direction to register the FIR should have been issued. 4. When faced with the question of maintainability of this writ appeal in view of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana and others (2017) 5 SCC 533, it is submitted that said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as writ petition has not been filed for quashing of any criminal proceedings, as was the case in Ram Kishan Fauji(supra). It is, thus, submitted that matter should be heard and adjudicated on merits. 5. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the appeal and seeks dismissal thereof. 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance. 7. Writ Petition No.29845 of 2025 has been filed by appellant/ writ petitioner with the following prayer: “to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.4 in registering the FIR inspite of receiving the complaint and having acknowledged the same, as illegal, arbitrary, abdication of the statutory duty cast upon them and quite contrary to the procedures contemplated under BNSS, 2023 and also the well-established legal principles being laid HCJ & CGRJ WA_41_2026 down by this Hon‟ble Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India from time to time apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to forthwith register a FIR on the file of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station, Palanadu District basing the complaint dated 25.05.2025 given by the petitioner and take appropriate action on the same in accordance with law.” 8. It is undeniable that there is a distinct criminal flavour in the present proceedings. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji(supra), while approving the view of High Court of Delhi and Gujarat, held as under: “56. As we find from the decisions of the aforesaid three High Courts, it is evident that there is no disagreement or conflict on the principle that if an appeal is barred under Clause 10 or Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as the case may be, no appeal will lie. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, however, has held that when the power is exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of a criminal proceeding, there is no exercise of criminal jurisdiction. It has distinguished the proceeding for quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C and, in that context, has opined that from such an order, no appeal would lie. On the contrary, the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi, on the basis of the law laid down by this Court in Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, have laid emphasis on the seed of initiation of criminal proceeding, the consequence of a criminal proceeding and also the nature of relief sought before the Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution. The conception of „criminal jurisdiction‟ as used in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not to be construed in the narrow sense. It encompasses in its gamut the inception and the consequence. It is the field in respect of which the jurisdiction is exercised, is relevant. The contention that solely because a writ petition is filed to quash an investigation, it would have room for intra-court appeal and if a petition is filed under inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., there would be no space for an intra-court appeal, would create HCJ & CGRJ WA_41_2026 an anomalous, unacceptable and inconceivable situation. The provision contained in the Letters Patent does not allow or permit such an interpretation. When we are required to consider a bar or non-permissibility, we have to appreciate the same in true letter and spirit. It confers jurisdiction as regards the subject of controversy or nature of proceeding and that subject is exercise of jurisdiction in criminal matters. It has nothing to do whether the order has been passed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” (emphasis added) 9. It was further held that what matters is the nature of proceedings, which serves as litmus test. In the present case, we do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for appellant that proceedings before writ Court are not criminal in nature. 10. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, we find that this writ appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. Appellant is at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law. There is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also shall stand(s) disposed of. LISA GILL, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes Whether the order is Reportable : No