Hamedra Pratap Singh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2025WP/860/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 860 of 2022, decided 17.11.2025 by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; Article 226; writ of mandamus; police inaction on representation/complaint dated 14.12.2021; non-cognizable offence; internal affair of Police; criminal procedure code; disposal with liberty to approach appropriate forum; no costs; Vizianagaram police respondents.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. No mandamus issued. ¶¶30

Hamedra Pratap Singh, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010007822022

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 860/2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

HAMEDRA PRATAP SINGH, S/O. SURENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. MANSAS GUEST HOUSE, INSIDE FORT, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AP POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶16

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, I TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.VIJAYA KUMAR NAIDANA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

¶25

the following prayer for:

¶26

“.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on petitioner's complaint dated 14.12.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, ultra vires, contrary to the procedure established by law and against to the provisions of criminal procedure code and consequently direct the respondents to take immediate action on petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2021 and to conduct the proper investigation in the interest of justice.”

¶27

¶28

2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the Police have not taken any action on the representation dated 14.12.2021 given by the Petitioner, since the contents of the representation disclose non-cognizable offence and also it is the internal affair of the Police.

¶29

3. Sri Vijaya Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶30

4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶32

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶33

Date:17.11.2025 Dinesh

¶34

¶35

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶36

W.P.No.860 of 2022

¶37