APHC010162762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 528 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-18 [3584] Garikapati Chowdakumari ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 10th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: MR. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR HOME JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present appeal is preferred by appellant-writ petitioner assailing the order, dated 11.11.2025, of learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.31146 of 2025, disposing the writ petition. 2. Appellant-writ petitioner approached 4th respondent Police Station for lodging a complaint against 6th respondent, her son-in- law, with regard to incident that occurred on 09.03.2025. However, 5th respondent, instead of accepting the complaint as submitted, under the guise of investigation, made her to sign blank papers and used the same as if she had submitted a different version of 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.528 of 2026 complaint. Based on the said fabricated complaint, F.I.R. in Crime No.35 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered on 10.03.2025. However, appellant having realised that registration of F.I.R. was not in consonance with the original complaint made by her, a representation, dated 27.09.2025, was submitted to 2nd respondent for initiating action against 5th respondent. As the same was not considered and disposed of, she preferred W.P.No.31146 of 2025. 3. During hearing of the writ petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents made statement that investigation had been completed and even charge-sheet was also filed. Having regard to the said submission, the writ petition came to be disposed of. 4. Heard Mr.P.V.S.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for appellant and learned Government Pleader for Home for official respondents. 5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that learned Single Judge erred in disposing of the writ petition based on the statement made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, without verifying the material on record and noticing that registration of 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.528 of 2026 F.I.R. in Crime No.35 of 2025 and filing of charge-sheet in the said crime has no correlation with the grievance raised in the writ petition. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents raised objection regards maintainability of writ petition having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rama Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana1. Insofar as merits are concerned, learned Government Pleader submits that the police have already laid charge-sheet on 12.05.2025 with respect to Crime No.235 of 2025 and the same was taken cognizance by learned First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet in C.C. No.522 of 2025. Therefore, the appellant can as well canvass any of grievances, including the one raised in the writ petition, before the jurisdictional criminal court. 7. Learned counsel for appellant, except for reiterating the merits of the matter, did not specifically answer the preliminary objection on the aspect of maintainability. 8. The prayer sought for in the writ petition has clear criminal trappings and flavour, therefore, we are of the opinion that in view of 1 AIR 2017 SC 1535 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.528 of 2026 the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal is not maintainable. 9. Having said that, we also take notice of the fact that the crime was registered on 10.03.2025 and charge-sheet was filed on 12.05.2025, and thereafter, representation was made much later on 27.09.2025. There is a significant time lag between lodgement of complaint and representation, which is unexplained. Be that as it may, the appellant has efficacious remedy of approaching learned trial Judge to redress the grievance, if any, by filing appropriate application. 10. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the appeal, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. cs