Dismissed¶47

Kundurthy Gurava Chary v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Feb 2026WP/15209/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed as withdrawn; writ of mandamus; non-registration of crime/FIR; Section 154(1) and 154(3); Lalitha Kumari v. State of Bihar; Priyanka Srivastava (2015) 6 SCC 287; CRLP No. 4560 of 2019; CRLP No. 4642 of 2019; SHO Piduguralla Town Police Station; Superintendent of Police Guntur Rural; State of Andhra Pradesh; IA No. 1 of 2019; Section 151 CPC; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed; Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi; 23.02.2026; Guntur district; Piduguralla.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were closed. ¶47

Kundurthy Gurava Chary Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the 3rd respondent's failure to register a crime on the petitioner's report dated 13.09.2019, and on his subsequent report to the 2nd respondent made pursuant to orders in CRLP Nos. 4560 and 4642 of 2019, was illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of police power, warranting a writ of mandamus directing registration of the crime against respondents 4 to 15 (raised in the prayer; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn).

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Permission was accorded to learned counsel for the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition.

¶46

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.ratio¶47
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 15209 of 2019, Kundurthy Gurava Chary v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), decided 23.02.2026 by Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi. The petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent no. 3 (SHO, Piduguralla Town Police Station) in not registering a crime against respondents 4 to 15 on his report dated 13.09.2019, and on his report to respondent no. 2 made pursuant to orders in CRLP Nos. 4560 and 4642 of 2019, as illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of police power, invoking Section 154(1) and 154(3), Lalitha Kumari v. State of Bihar and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP, (2015) 6 SCC 287, and seeking consequential direction to register the crime. An interim application (IA No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC) sought the same direction pending disposal. Before any adjudication, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition; permission was accorded, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications stood closed. No findings on merits were recorded.

¶1

APHC010323902019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15209/2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

KUNDURTHY GURAVA CHARY, S/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O PIDUGURALLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR RURAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶13

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

YARAPATHINENI SRINIVASA RAO, ,S/O. LAXMAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC. FORMER MLA, GURAZALA, R/O. VIDYANAGAR COLONY, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

B JAGANNADHA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. THE THEN MINING AD, DACHEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRDESH.

¶16

E MURALI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. THE THEN RDO, GURAZALA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

¶18

A GOPAL, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. THE THEN CONSTABLE, SHO PIDUGURALLA TOWN, PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶19

DARIYA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. THE THEN HEAD CONSTABLE, SHO PIDUGURALLA TOWN, PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶20

JAGADEESH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. THE THEN SI OF POLICE, SHO PIDUGURALLA TOWN, PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶21

M HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. THE THEN CI, SHO PIDUGURALLA TOWN, PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶22

RAVINDRA BABI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. THE THEN SI OF POLICE, SHO PIDUGURALLA TOWN, PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶23

S K KAREEMULLAH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. THE THEN CONSTABLE, SHO PIDUGURALLA TOWN, PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶24

DEVARAKONDA BRAHMAM, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O ANUPALEM, RAJUPALEM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶25

NALLATI SUBBARAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. FOLLOWER OF THE 2ND ACCUSED, RIO PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶26

PRAMESHWAR RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. REPORTER OF ANDHRA JYOTHI, PIDUGURALLA TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶27

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶28

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 to issue a Writ or Order or Direc.ion more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not registering the crime against the

¶29

¶30

respondents 4 to 15 herein basing on the report made by the petitioner herein on 13.09.2019 as well as on the report to the 2nd respondent as per the orders passed in CRLP No. 4560 of 2019 and in CRLP No. 4642 of 2019 in compliance with Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) relying on the Judgment reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 Priyanka Srivasthava vs. State of UP as illegal, arbitrary and also abuse of power of Police as well as oppose to the Verdict passed by the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs State of Bihar consequentially direct the respondent no. 3 to register the crime basing on the report made by the petitioner as per the verdict of the Apex Court passed in Lalitha Kumari Vs State of Bihar forthwith by taking necessary action against the respondents 4 to 15 herein

¶31

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶32

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 respondent no. 3 to register the crime basing on the Report made by the petitioner Dated 13.09.2019 as well as on the report to the 2nd respondent dated 18.09.2019 forthwith as per the verdict of the Apex Court reported as Lalitha Kumari Vs State of Bihar by taking necessary act on against the respondents 4 to 15 herein pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶34

1.V SAI KUMAR

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶37

2.ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO

¶38

3.SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI

¶39

4.SRINIVAS BASAVA

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

WRIT PETITION No.15209 OF 2019

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

Sri N.Sashinag, learned counsel representing Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition.

¶46

2. Permission is accorded.

¶47