Dismissed¶36

Chodisetti Kasiyya v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2025WP/7473/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR registration; non-registration of crime on complaint; Lalita Kumari mandate; writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC interim application; police registered Crime No. 111 of 2019 on 11.06.2019 and investigated; report dated 06.06.2019 under Receipt No. 86/2019; Station House Officer, Gollapalem Police Station, East Godavari; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed; single Judge B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi; decided 09.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader's intimation that the police had registered Crime No. 111 of 2019 on 11.06.2019 and investigated the matter, the cause in the writ petition did not survive for further adjudication and the petition had become infructuous. ¶34

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 3rd respondent (Station House Officer, Gollapalem Police Station) in not registering a crime on the petitioner's report dated 06.06.2019 against respondents 4 to 6, under Receipt No. 86/2019, was illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the verdict of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari, warranting a writ of mandamus directing registration of the crime.

¶32

Court's answer

¶34

Ratio / Principle

In light of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

¶36

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 7473 of 2019, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), order dated 09.12.2025 by Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi. The petitioner, Chodisetti Kasiyya (a journalist of Kajuluru, East Godavari District), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring illegal, arbitrary and contemptuous the failure of the Station House Officer, Gollapalem Police Station (3rd respondent) to register a crime on his report dated 06.06.2019, acknowledged under Receipt No. 86/2019, against respondents 4 to 6 (Chaganti Kondayya, Talatam Satyanarayana Murthy and Nadikolla Atchi Raju), contending that the inaction was opposed to the verdict of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari; IA No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC sought interim registration of the crime. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Sri R. Mallikarjuna Rao), on written instructions, informed the Court that on receiving the report the police had registered a case in Crime No. 111 of 2019 on 11.06.2019 and investigated the matter. Holding that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for further adjudication, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs, and directed that pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

¶1

APHC010173452019

¶2

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

¶3

[3368]

¶4

TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 7473/2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

CHODISETTI KASIYYA, S/O ADINARAYANA, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC JOURNALIST, R/O 4-51, POST OFFICE STREET, KAJULURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶13

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GOLLAPALEM POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

CHAGANTI KONDAYYA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, R/O KUYYERU, KAJULURU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

TALATAM SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, R/O KUYYERU, KAJULURU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

NADIKOLLA ATCHI RAJU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, R/O KUYYERU, KAJULURU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 toto issue a Writ or order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not registering the crime basing on the report

¶19

¶20

made by the petitioner against the respondents 4 to 6 herein dated 06.06.2019 under receipt number 86/2019 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to the verdict of the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs State of Bihar as well as contemptuous in nature consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the crime basing on the report made by the petitioner against the respondents 4 to 6 herein dated 06.06.2019 under receipt number 86/2019 forthwith

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

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 3rd respondent to register the crime basing on the report made by the petitioner against the respondents 4 to 6 herein dated 06.06.2019 under receipt number 86/2019 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.V SAI KUMAR

¶25

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

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.7473 of 2019

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶32

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not registering the crime based on the report made by the petitioner against respondents 4 to 6 dated 06.06.2019, under Receipt No. 86/2019, as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, as well as contemptuous in nature, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the crime based on the said report forthwith.”

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶34

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that on receiving the report from the petitioner, the police registered a case in Crime No. 111 of 2019 on 11.06.2019 and investigated into the matter. Hence, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication, and the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶35

¶36

In light of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in

¶38

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶39

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶40

9th December, 2025 cbn

¶41

¶42

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI