1
APHC010413122024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3396]
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 21187/2024
Between:
BAKKA SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO. 5-81, KOTHAPALEM
VILLAGE, CHIRALA MANDAL BAPATLA DISTRICT A.P
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATHI, A.P.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT, A.P
3. THE S H O, CHIRALA I TOWN POLICE STATION BAPATLA
DISTRICT, A.P
4. VALLEPU PRASHANT KUMAR, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE IN RELIANCE DIGITAL, R/O D.NO.1-266, CHERUKUMPALEM VILLAGE, ACHAMPET MANDAL,
GUNTUR DT.A.P.
5. KAVURI ASHOK VARDHAN REDDY, S/O RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HINDU, R/O H.NO.2-11/2, RAMAKRISHNA
NAGAR, GANDHINAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT CHIRALA MANDAL,
BAPATLA DISTRICT, A.P.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
PHANI KIRAN M.
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
1
".... a writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the Respondents in not registering the crime basing on the complaint dt 02-09-2023 against the criminal acts committed by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 inspite of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs Govt of U.P and Others, which is illegal and irrational against the procedure established by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita( BNSS) and violative of Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents particularly the 3rd Respondent to register the crime and prosecute the accused persons for appropriate offences and penal provisions of law by subjecting them for the process of arrest and judicial remand."
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri M.Phani Kiran, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the grievance of the Petitioner is that, though he has presented a complaint to the Police, they have not registered the case. Learned counsel would further submit that, petition may be disposed by giving liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy according to law.
3. Sri S.Sarath Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders.
4. Considering the submissions made, this petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
Date: 26.09.2024
2
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.21187 of 2024
Dt.26.09.2024
3
Comments