APHC010625982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 32547/2025 Between: 1. DARLA RAMESH KUMAR, S/O. KANTAIAH, AGE 60 YRS, OCO BUSINESS, ADDRESS- FLAT NO.62, 2ND LINE, NEAR TATA MOTORS, SRINIVASA NAGAR, BANK COLONY, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAGALAGIRI RURAL POLICE STATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 3. BURADAGUNTA EASTERU PRASANNA LATHA, W/O. VEERAJU, AGE 38 YRS, R/O. DOOR NO. 25-56, PEDDA BAJAR, BADE PURAM VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. DODDA REKHA, W/O. SUDHAKAR, AGE 35 YRS, R/O. DOOR NO.22-105, BADEPURAM VILLAGE, R.C.M. CHURCH, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 5. DODDA SUDHAKAR, S/O. NOT KNOWN. AGE 40 YRS, R/O. DOOR NO.22-105, BADEPURAM VILLAGE, R.C.M. CHURCH TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 6. VEERAJU, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE 42 YRS, R/O. DOOR NO. 25-56, PEDDA BAJAR, BADE PURAM VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2 7. BABU RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN. AGE 49 YRS, R/O. FLAT NO. 408 AND 409, KRISTAL GARDENS APARTMENT, BACK SIDE OF N. R. I. HOSPITAL, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. PRABHU DAS, (DOCUMENT WRITER) S/O. NOT KNOWN. AGE 40 YRS, ADDRESS- OPPOSITE MANGALAGIRI SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, MAIN ROAD MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking any action against the 3rd 4th 5th 6th and 8th respondents pursuant to the complaint dated. 10.11.2025 given by the Petitioner, in-spite of his repeated visits, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th and 8th respondents to forthwith act upon the complaint dated. 10.11.2025 and take action in accordance with law, and to grant IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondent No.2 herein to forthwith register a criminal case against the respondents no. the 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th and 8th pursuant to the complaint dated 10.11.2025, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KONDIPARTHI V RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 32547 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: Instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the present Writ Petition filed questioning the not taking any action by the respondent no 5 and 8 in not taking any action against the unofficial respondents No 9 to 14 on the report dated 22 09 2025 despite issuance receipt dated 23 10 2025 vide reeipt no 190/25/CCC/SPWG and registered post/speed post dated 10 10 2025 with acknowledgment duly served on 13 10 2025 14 10 2025 even though case is made out cognizable inhuman uncivilised offences as illegal arbitrary insubordination and violation of article 14 15 17 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and also violation of settleed principles of law by the Apex court Lalith Kumari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and also violation under BNS BNSS and offences punishable under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 and Rules 1995 consequently direct the respondent no 5 and 8 and direct the respondent no 3 and 6 to provide proper protection and precautionary and preventive measures as per The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 and Rules 1995 or proper investigation/enquiry basing on the report dated 22 09 2025 and subsequent reports under and to expeditiously”. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of Respondent/State and perused the material placed available on record. 3. Conspectus of facts in the present Writ Petition is that, despite the petitioner’s complaint to the police personnel, the respondent police are not acting upon the same by registering an FIR, thereby lodging criminal proceedings. 4 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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 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 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798 5 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. 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: 6 i) Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional Magistrate by filing appropriate complaint under Section 175(3) and 210 read with 223 of BNSS, 2023. 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: 31.08.2026 BSM 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 32547 of 2025 Date: 31.08.2026 BSM