Disposed¶33

Tarun Sai Gadde v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 May 2026WP/12645/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; WRIT PETITION No.12645 of 2025; decided 05.05.2026 by Justice Subhendu Samanta. Keywords: Article 226 mandamus; police summons/harassment; personal liberty; Articles 14 and 21; interference with civil disputes; GST-related granite export trade; Cr.No.120 of 2025; Narasaropet/Palnadu; Chilakaluripet Town Police Station; Circle Inspector; no order stalling investigation; writ petition disposed, no costs; IA No.1 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC; counsel Ravi Teja Gude; GP for Home.

What did the court decide?

No order is required to pass to stall investigation of the crime. ¶32

Tarun Sai Gadde Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3560]

¶2

APHC010244422025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 12645/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

TARUN SAI GADDE, C/O VENKATA KRISHNA RAO AGED 26 YEARS, R/O D.NO.32-133,SUBHANI NAGAR,

¶10

CHILAKALURIPET,PALNADU-5226

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASAROPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, . NARASAROPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHILAKALURIPET TOWN POLICE STATION

¶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 topleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high-handed action of the Respondents No.4 repeatedly calling petitioner to their office on every alternate day from instance of third parties and insisting him to admit to certain GST-related business transactions in the granite export trade and financial under takings

¶19

to the third parties thereby interfering with my personal liberty without there being any legal authority and threatening Petitioner to implicate in false criminal cases for failure thereof as illegal, irregular, irrational without jurisdiction violative fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No.4 not to threaten and interfere with civil disputes by calling the Petitioner to the Police Station except in accordance with law and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 pleased to direct the Respondents No.4 not to threaten and interfere with civil disputes by calling the Petitioner to the Police Station except in accordance with law, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.RAVI TEJA GUDE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION No. 12645 of 2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The petitioner approached this Court against illegal activities and highhanded action of 4^th respondent, who repeatedly calling petitioner to the police station on every alternative day.

¶30

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason to harass the petitioner by calling to the police station in the every alternative day.

¶31

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submits that the crime was registered against the present petitioner being Cr.No.120 of 2025, in pursuance to investigate the said crime; the petitioner was called in the police station for enquiry.

¶32

Having heard the submissions of the parties, I am of a view that no order is required to pass to stall investigation of crime.

¶33

I find no justification to pass any order in this writ petition and accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶35

Dated: 05.05.2026 CVD

Tarun Sai Gadde v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Sai Gadde v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Noormohammad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Raghunath Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yanamaddi Nagamalleswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Suseela, Vs The State of A.P.

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gollapalli Ananda Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh