APHC010176872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9895/2026 Between: POTHURAJU THEJOMAYE, W/O LATE P. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC CONTRACT EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO. 1-3-16, RAMADASU STREET, ALLAGADDA TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.(522238) 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, OFFICE AT MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT (522502) 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYAL DISTRICT AT NANDYAL. (518501) 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYAL DISTRICT AT NANDYAL. (518501) 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIRIVELLA CIRCLE, NANDYAL DISTRICT. (518563) 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RUDRAVARAM POLICE STATION, NANDYAL DISTRICT. (518452) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.9895 of 2026 Dated 17.04.2026 SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not initiating further steps in registering the F I R and conducting investigation on the petitioners complaint Dt 16 02 2026 inspite of repeated requests though there are cognizable offences as nothing but illegal arbitrary highhanded and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgment in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India and consequently direct the Respondents to take action by registering the F I R on the petitioners complaint Dt 16 02 2026 and pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.02.2026 to the respondent police, but no FIR was registered and no investigation was conducted. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the respondent police conducted a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of ‘the BNSS’ and found that the nature of the 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.9895 of 2026 Dated 17.04.2026 allegations is civil in nature; therefore, the respondent police could not proceed further on the complaint of the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by filing a private complaint before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 210 read with Section 223 of ‘the BNSS’. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, requiring the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing an appropriate complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 210 read with Section 223 of ‘the BNSS’, if so advised. 7. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.04.2026 RSI 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.9895 of 2026 Dated 17.04.2026 152 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9895 of 2026 Date:17.04.2026 RSI