Dismissed¶43

Maram Nageswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2026WP/11509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 11509 of 2019; Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi; decided 2nd March 2026; dismissal for non-prosecution; no representation by petitioner; FIR No. 275/2019 dated 11.08.2019 registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.; petitioner sought alteration to Section 302 IPC and arraying of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 as accused; Kothapeta Police Station, Guntur; charge sheet filed 23.04.2022; A1 died during trial; A2 to A4 acquitted on 10.11.2025 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. in S.C. No. 206 of 2023, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur; no costs; interlocutory applications closed; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, there being no representation for the writ petitioner, with no order as to costs. ¶43

Maram Nageswara Rao Vs The State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in registering FIR No. 275/2019 dated 11.08.2019 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 302 IPC, despite the petitioner's complaint alleging respondent Nos. 5 to 8 responsible for the death of his son, is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the FIR section should be altered to Section 302 IPC, respondent Nos. 5 to 8 arrayed as accused, and the investigation conducted expeditiously.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, there being no representation for the writ petitioner, with no order as to costs.

¶43

Key takeaways

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (W.P. No. 11509 of 2019, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J., 2nd March, 2026): The petitioner sought a declaration that the registration of FIR No. 275/2019 dated 11.08.2019 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., instead of Section 302 IPC, by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, despite his complaint naming respondent Nos. 5 to 8 as responsible for his son's death, was illegal and arbitrary, and a direction to alter the FIR section to Section 302 IPC, array respondent Nos. 5 to 8 as accused, and complete the investigation expeditiously. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home stated on written instructions that the investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed on 23.04.2022; A1 died during the trial; and on 10.11.2025 A2 to A4 were acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. in S.C. No. 206 of 2023 (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur). The matter was listed under the caption 'For Dismissal' with no representation for the petitioner on the hearing date or earlier. HELD: The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications stand closed. The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the FIR-alteration grievance.

¶1

APHC010253882019

¶2

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

¶3

[3368]

¶4

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 11509/2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

MARAM NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. RAMA KRISHNAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC FISHERMAN, R/O. 7-39, DHARANIKOTA VILLAGE, AMARAVATI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522020.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KOTHAPETA POLICE STATION,GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTHAPETA POLICE STATION, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

PITTALA SUDHAKAR, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. NEAR POLERAMMA THALLI TEMPLE, RAMIREDDY THOTA, GUNTUR.

¶18

PITTALA PAVAN, S/O. SUDHAKAR AGED 25 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. NEAR POLERAMMA THALLI TEMPLE, RAMIREDDY THOTA, GUNTUR.

¶19

MARAM SRAVYA PITTALA SRAVYA, W/O. LATE RAMESH, D/O. SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR POLERAMMA THALLI TEMPLE, RAMIREDDY THOTA, GUNTUR.

¶20

PITTALA VIJAYA, W/O. SUDHAKAR, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR POLERAMMA THALLI TEMPLE, RAMIREDDY THOTA, GUNTUR.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

¶23

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part of the respondents 2 to 4 in not registeriv the crime F1R.No.r15/2019, dated 11.08.2019 as murder under Sec. 302 IPC instead of written compliant given by the petitioner clearly mentioning the respondents 5 to 8 are responsible for the death of petitioner's son as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, unconstitutional and in violation of Principles of Natural JL stice and to consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to alter the section in the FIR.No.275/2019 as Sec. 302 IPC instead of Sec. 174 Cr.P.0 by ac ding the respondents 5 to 8 as accused and to take necessary action and to do the investigation in .it expeditiously as early as possible and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶25

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 respondents 2 to 4 to alter the section in the FIR.No.275/2019 as Sec. 302 IPC instead of Sec. 174 Cr.P.0 by adding the respondents 5 to 8 as accused and to take necessary action and to do the investigation in it expeditiously as early as possible and to pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA IRLA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.11509 of 2019

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Though the matter is posted today under the caption <For Dismissal,= there is no representation for the writ petitioner. Even on the earlier occasion, there was no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner.

¶36

Sri R. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader

¶37

for Home, representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4, is present.

¶38

The present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in registering FIR No. 275/2019 dated 11.08.2019 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., instead of Section 302 IPC, despite the petitioner’s complaint alleging that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are responsible for the death of his son, is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner consequently seeks a direction to alter the section of law to Section 302 IPC, array respondent Nos. 5 to 8 as accused, and conduct an expeditious investigation.

¶39

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submitted that the police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet on 23.04.2022. A1 died during the trial, and on

¶40

10.11.2025, the case against A2 to A4 was acquitted under Section

¶41

¶42

235(1) Cr.P.C. vide S.C. No. 206 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. He submitted that, in view of the above, the cause in the writ petition no longer survives for adjudication and that the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶43

In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶45

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

2^nd March, 2026 cbn

129

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

¶50