Disposed¶39

Puchakayala Muni Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jun 2026WP/15143/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 15143 of 2026; Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma; decided 11.06.2026; Writ of Mandamus; police non-interference in matrimonial/civil dispute; DSP Sri Kalahasti (K Narasimha Murthy); Venkatagiri Police Station complaint; gold jewellery dispute; mediated agreement not adhered to; CCTV surveillance in police stations; Articles 14, 21 and 22; Article 226; Section 151 CPC interim application (IA No. 1 of 2026); disposed of with directions; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Police directed not to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties, while remaining free to act strictly in accordance with law if any complaint discloses commission of any offence; miscellaneous petitions and any interim orders stand closed; no order as to costs. ¶39

Puchakayala Muni Sekhar Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.4 (DSP, Sri Kalahasti) in repeatedly calling the petitioners to his office in connection with matrimonial disputes pending before the competent court at Venkatagiri, without CCTV surveillance, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and whether the police should be directed not to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Prima facie, the matter appears to be a civil dispute between the parties; therefore, the police are directed not to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The direction not to interfere shall not come in the way of the police authorities acting strictly in accordance with law, if a complaint discloses commission of any offence.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) disposed of Writ Petition No. 15143 of 2026, in which three family members sought a Writ of Mandamus restraining the 4th respondent (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri Kalahasti) from interfering in a matrimonial dispute pending before the competent court at Venkatagiri, alleging he repeatedly summoned them to his office, detained them for long hours and pressured them to provide money and gold ornaments to the 1st petitioner's wife, without CCTV surveillance. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the wife (Smt. P.Ratanamma) had made a representation and lodged a complaint at Venkatagiri Police Station regarding gold jewellery, and that a mediated agreement between the parties had not been adhered to. Finding the matter prima facie a civil dispute, the Court directed the police not to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties, while clarifying that the order would not preclude the police from acting strictly in accordance with law if any complaint disclosed commission of an offence. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs; the prayer for installation of CCTV cameras at the 4th respondent's office was not specifically addressed.

¶1

[3520]

¶2

APHC010288692026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 15143 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

PUCHAKAYALA MUNI SEKHAR, S/O. PUCHAKAYALA MUNEIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. DAILY LABOUR, R/O. CHEMURU VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517536.

¶10

PUCHAKAYALA MUNEIAH, S/O. LATE PUCHAKAYALA ANKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. DAILY LABOUR, R/O. CHEMURU VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517536.

¶11

PUCHAKAYALA RAJESWARI, W/O. PUCHAKAYALA MUNEIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. DAILY LABOUR, R/O. CHEMURU VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517536

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501.

¶17

K NARASIMHA MURTHY, THE DEPUTY SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRI KALAHASTI, DSP OFFICE- SRI KALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517644.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

¶20

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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in repeatedly calling the petitioners to his office at Srikalahasti in connection with matrimonial disputes already pending before the competent Court at Venkatagiri and making them remain there for long hours by threatening them to provide money and gold ornaments to the wife of petitioner on the pretext of registration of false criminal cases, in absence of CCTV surveillance, as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding CCTV surveillance in police stations and consequently, direct the Respondents particularly Respondent no.4 not to interfere in the matrimonial disputes of the petitioners except in accordance with due process of law and further direct respondents to install CCTV cameras in office of the 4th respondent and pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents particularly Respondent no.4 not to interfere in the matrimonial disputes of the petitioners except in accordance with due process of law, particularly without ensuring CCTV surveillance, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.Y V S S DHARANEESH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR HOME

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 15143 OF 2026

¶31

The Court made the following Order:

¶32

The present writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.4 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the parties, particularly which is of matrimonial dispute between the 1^st petitioner and his wife.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that one Smt. P.Ratanamma, wife of P.Munisekhar (1^st petitioner), submitted a representation regarding the differences between herself and the 1^st petitioner herein, stating that her gold jewellery is with her husband and family members and that whenever she demands return of the same, she is being ill-treated and disputes have arisen in that connection.

¶34

It is further submitted that the wife of the 1^st petitioner lodged a complaint at Venkatagiri Police Station, which is admitted by the writ petitioners.

¶35

The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the parties had mediation in the presence of elders and had earlier entered into an agreement and submitted before the Venkatagiri Police Station regarding the gold jewellery issue. However, they did not adhere to the said agreement.

¶36

Prima facie , this matter appears to be a civil dispute between the parties. Therefore, the police are directed not to interfere in the civil dispute

¶37

¶38

between the parties. However, this order shall not come in the way of the police authorities acting strictly in accordance with law, if complaint discloses commission of any offence.

¶39