Disposed¶51

Radhapravalika v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jul 2025WP/302/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 302 of 2025; decided 16.07.2025 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; disposed; failure to register FIR; complaints dated 05.05.2024 and 21.10.2024 not disposed; Ongole L-Town police; liberty to work out remedy before Trial Court; Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC (Criminal) 66 cited in prayer only; Article 226; Articles 14 and 21; no order as to costs; pending applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the Trial Court as per law; no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stand closed. ¶51

Radhapravalika Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the Trial Court as per law; no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stand closed.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent police's action in not disposing of the petitioner's complaints dated 05.05.2024 and 21.10.2024, without investigation or opportunity to submit evidence, and in failing to register an FIR despite receipt of the complaints, was illegal and arbitrary, and whether the police ought to be directed to register the complaint and act in accordance with law.

¶48

Court's answer

In view of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home's submission that the cause of action does not survive before this Court, the Writ Petition is disposed of; the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedy before the Trial Court as per law, with no order as to costs.

¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 filed by Radhapravalika against the State of Andhra Pradesh and Ongole police officials (Superintendent of Police, Sub Divisional Police Office, Inspector and Station House Officer, L-Town Police Station), complaining that her complaints dated 05.05.2024 and 21.10.2024 were not disposed of in accordance with law, that no investigation was carried out and no opportunity given to submit evidence, and that no FIR was registered despite receipt of the complaints, invoking Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the Apex Court judgment in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Before the Court (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa), the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner may be directed to work out her remedy in the Trial Court as per law since the cause of action does not survive before the High Court, and learned counsel for the petitioner sought disposal on that recording. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition, granting the petitioner liberty to work out her remedy before the Trial Court as per law, with no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.

¶1

^APHCOI0093882025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 302 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Radhapravalika, D/o Chandrasekhar, W/o Konakandia Mani Deep, Aged about 29 years, R/o 23-1-113/1, Gandhi Road, Near Gandhi Statue Ongole Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶12

The Sub Divisional Police Office, Ongole Sub-Division, Ongole Prakasam District.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, l-Town, Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶14

The Station House Officer, l-Town, Police Station Ongole, Prakasam

District.

...Respondents

the complaints of the petitioner on 05.05.2024 and 21.10.2024 in accordance with law, without doing any investigation or giving any opportunityto submit evidence and failed to register FIR despite the receipt of the said complaint as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also in of Apex court Judgment in Lalitha Kumari V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC (CRIMINAL) 66., and consequently direct the respondent Police to register the complaint of the petitioner and take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK ASIF

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following order:

¶23

APHC010003882025

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶25

[3396]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 302/2025

¶30

Between:

¶31

1.RADHAPRAVALIKA, D/0 CHANDRASEKHAR, W/0 KONAKANDIA MANI DEEP AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/0 23-1-113/1, GANDHI ROAD, NEAR GANDHI STATUE, ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶35

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶36

3.THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICE, ONGOLE SUB-DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶37

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, L-TOWN, POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶38

5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, L-TOWN, POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶40

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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent police in not disposing the complaints of the petitioner on 05.05.2024 and 21.10.2024 in accordance with law, without doing any investigation or giving any opportunity to submit evidence and failed to register FIR despite the receipt of the said complaint as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also in violation^{ofArticle14and21of} Constitution of India and also in of Apex court Judgment^{inLalithaKumari} V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC (CRIMINAL) 66., and consequently direct the respondent Police to register the complaint of the petitioner and take appropriate action in the matter^{inaccordancewithlaw} and to pass

¶41

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶43

1.SHAIKASIF

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶48

"... to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent police in not disposing the complaints of the petitioner on 05.05.2024 and 21.10.2024 in accordance with law, without doing any investigation or giving any opportunity to submit evidence and failed to register FIR despite the receipt of the said complaint as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also in of Apex court Judgment in Lalitha Kumari V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC (CRIMINAL) 66., and consequently direct the respondent Police to register the complaint of the petitioner and take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law and to pass ...."

¶49

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents would submit that a direction may be given to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the Trial Court as per law since the cause of action does not survive before this Court and that this Court may pass appropriate orders by disposing of this Writ Petition.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recording the said submission, this Writ Petition may be disposed of.

¶51

In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedy before the Trial Court as per law. No order as to costs.

¶52

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. . V Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,