1 APHC010226642023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11934/2023 Between: Ravi Thrinadh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the authorities to initiate proceedings under Chapter VIII, Section 107 of Criminal Procedure code against his creditors for their illegal acts causing disturbance to the public tranquility by threatening him and his family members with dire consequences. 2 2. Heard Sri M.Prasad Babu, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that, the petitioner, instead of availing other effective alternative remedy available to him, filed the present writ petition which cannot be entertained by this court, as such prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. In Union Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon1, the Apex Court has held that it is true that rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass an order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision etc., and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 5. Mere availability of alternative remedy is not a bar for invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, however, legal contingencies that are required to bypass the alternative remedy should be made out while invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any exigencies to bypass the alternative remedy. 1 (2010) 8 SCC 110 3 6. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions of the case, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents to initiate proceedings to bind over executives of his creditors, their agents, representatives and henchmen for their illegal acts. The petitioner cannot seek initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely to settle a personal dispute or private grievance with bank officials or the representatives of his creditors. The jurisdiction under Section 107 is preventive in nature and is intended to address a situation where there is credible material indicating that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity. It is not a mechanism for adjudicating private disputes, enforcing private claims, or settling personal vendettas. 7. Therefore, where the dispute is essentially between the petitioner and certain bank officials concerning the acts of the creditors, their agents or representatives, the petitioner cannot compel the Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 107 as a matter of right. In the absence of material demonstrating a genuine apprehension of breach of peace or a threat to public tranquility, such proceedings cannot be invoked merely at the instance of the petitioner to ventilate a private grievance. If the petitioner has any grievance against the bank officials or other persons concerned, he is required to avail other remedies as may be available to him in law. The preventive jurisdiction under Section 107 cannot be invoked as a substitute for those remedies or as a means of resolving a private or personal dispute. 4 8. In view of the same, without going into merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS