APHC010291222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 14695 OF 2024 Between: 1. Sri Alluri Picheswara Rao,, S/o. Alluri Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 61 Years, Occ Labour, Rio. H. No. 9-40, Velama Peta Street, Bhimadole Village and Mandal, Eluru District. 2. Smt. Alluri Leelavathi,, W/o. Alluri Picheswara Rao, Aged about 56 Years, Occ House-Wife, RJo. H. No. 9-40, Velama Peta Street, Bhimadole Village and Mandal, Eluru District. 3. Sri Alluri Ranga Rao,, S/o. Alluri Picheswara Rao, Aged about 38 Years, Occ Labour, R/o. H. No. 9-40, Velama Peta Street, Bhimadole Village and Mandal, Eluru District. 4. Sri Arepalli Srinivasa Rao,, S/o. A. Subba Rao, Aged 46 years, Occ Labour, R/o. H.No.9-92, Velamapeta Street, Bhimadole Village and Mandal, Eluru District. 5. Smt. Arepalli Sunitha,, W/o. A. Srinivasa Rao, Aged 43 years, Occ Labour, R/o. H.No.9-92, Velamapeta Street, Bhimadole Village and Mandal, Eluru District 2 ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Eluru District at Eluru. 3. The Superintendent of Police, At Eluru, Eluru District. 4. The Station House Officer, Bhimadole Police Station, Eluru District. 5. Smt Allurui Rama Lakshmi, D/o. Bejawada Krishna, W/o. A. Ranga Rao, Aged 39 Years, R/o. Vempadu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District - 534 007. 6. Sri Veerla Nagu, S/o. Veerla Tulasi Rao, Aged 40 Years, Occ Business, R/o. Velama Peta Street, Near Police Station Road, Bhimadole Village and Mandal, Eluru District - 534 007 7. Smt Bejawada Pushpa, W/o. Bejwada Krishna, Aged 55 Years, Occ House-Wife, R/o. Vempadu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District - 534 007. 8. Sri Bejawada Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Bejwada Krishna, Aged 43 Years, R/o. Vempadu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District - 534 007. 3 9. Smt Bejawada Sujatha, W/o. Bejawada Venkateswar Rao, Aged 36 Years, R/o. Vempadu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District - 534 007. 10. Sri Bejawada Siva, S/o. Bejwada Krishna, Aged 37 Years, R/o. Vempadu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District - 534 007. ...Respondents 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in not taking any action on the Representations of the petitioners dated 28.06.2024 and 01.07.2024 followed by personal visits, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to act upon the representations dt. 28.06.2024 and 01.07.2024 and to take action accordance with law and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and protecting their personal life and liberty of the petitioners herein and to grant 4 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to direct the Respondents not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners herein forthwith by considering the Representations dt. 28.6.2024 and 01.7.2024 by following due process of law, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: BABUJI TENNETI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 14695 of 2024 The Court made the following Order: Instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in not taking any action on the Representations of the petitioners dated 28.06.2024 and 01.07.2024 followed by personal visits, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to act upon the representations dt. 28.06.2024 and 01.07.2024 and to take action in accordance with law and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and protecting their personal life and liberty of the petitioners herein and to pass”. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of Respondent/State and perused the material placed available on record. 6 3. Conspectus of facts in the present Writ Petition is that, despite the petitioners’ complaint to the police personnel, the respondent police are not acting upon the same by registering an FIR, thereby lodging criminal proceedings. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing on the written instructions of the Respondent/Police, submits that preliminary enquiry of the police reveals that the petitioners’ complaint does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. As such, Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. 5. Now, coming to the central issue in the lis, despite the petitioners’ complaint, the police are not registering an FIR; the aggrieved party directly initiating proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. In this juncture, it is appropriate to note that the issue involved in the present lis, is squarely covered by the Order of this Court dated 23.07.2026 in WP No.18425 of 2026, wherein this Court appreciated the facts and law by taking into 7 consideration of the dictums laid down by the Apex Court including latest expression held in Sujal Vishwas Attavar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others1, wherein it was held as under: “7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise. 8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798 8 9. xxxx. 10. xxxx. 11. The High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against a statutory authority. Ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction [See: Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra)]. In the present facts, the complainant Company has not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies available under BNSS. There is, therefore, no foundation to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the reason that efficacious and efficient alternative remedies exists. Hence, at this stage, we find the instant writ petition to be premature, and, therefore, not fit to be entertained.” 7. Accordingly, by applying the above ratio to the present case too, this Writ Petition is disposed of as under: i) Liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the learned jurisdictional Magistrate by filing appropriate complaint under Section 175(3) and 210 read with 223 of BNSS, 2023. 9 ii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and whether or not the complaint discloses criminal offences. iii) Equally, it will be open to all the stakeholders to avail remedies in terms of the statutory realm.” There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Registry is directed to append a copy of the Order of this Court dated 23.07.2026 in WP No.18425 of 2026 along with the instant order. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 24.08.2026 PSA 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 14695 of 2024 Date: 24.08.2026 PSA