Vunnam Narayanamma Vs the State of Ap

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010369082024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 18621/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

VUNNAM NARAYANAMMA, W/0 RAMULU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/0 CHERLAGUDIPADU, GURAZALA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

SURABATHULA VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/0 SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, R/0 4-20, JANAPADU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

SURABATHULA MANIKANTA, , S/0 SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, R/0 4-20, JANAPADU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPETA PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, , PIDUGURALLA POLICE STATION PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

MR VENKAT RAO, S/0 NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIDUGURALLA POLICE STATION, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶18

NUTHALAPATI BHULAKSHMI, W/0 NAGA KRISHNA, AGED 45 YEARS R/0 MUTYALAMPADU VILLAGE, DACHEPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶19

UNNAM ATCHIYYA, S/O SITAYYA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/0 NEAR, VIKAS PUBLIC SCHOOL, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶20

JAMMIGUMPULA SAIDAIAH, S/O PULAIAH, AGED 70 YAERS, R/0 PUDIPADU VILLAGE, GURAZALA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶21

YAMANI VENKATRAO KARIVEPAKU VENKAT RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, R/0 MORJAMPADU VILLAGE, MACHAVARM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

2

¶25

1.V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR HOME

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

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

¶30

the following prayer for:

¶31

“.... to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.3 in calling the petitioners to the police station and also in compelling them to cancel the Sale deed in Document No.7478/2012 dated 09.11.2012 which was executed by petitioner herein as well as in the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2 demanding the 2ND petitioner to handover the land in Document No. 7478/2012 dated 09.11.2012 to the 5TH respondent further in interfering with the civil disputes pending in between the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent in OS No. 12 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Piduguralla as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 21 of the constitution of India as well as abuse of power of police, consequentially direct the respondents 3 and 4 herein not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners under the influence of the of the respondents 5 to 8 herein as well as in civil disputes pending in between the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent in OS No. 12 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Piduguralla and to pass ”

¶32

2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶33

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that based on the complaint made by respondent No.5, the police registered a case in Crime No.274 of 2024 of Piduguralla Police Station for the offences under Sections 118(1) and 79 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS against the 3rd petitioner herein and the husband of the 2nd

¶34

3

¶35

petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the 1st petitioner is a witness in the said case and that the police called the petitioners only for the purpose of investigation relating to the said crime. Except for the above, the police have never interfered in any civil dispute nor insisted the petitioners to withdraw the sale deed, as alleged.

¶36

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petition may be disposed of by directing the police to follow guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar¹ , in the aforesaid crime .

¶37

5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed to follow due process of law regarding the crime which is registered against the petitioners. In the event of any coercive action sought to be taken against the petitioners, concerned police authorities are directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

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

¶39

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶40

Date:05.01.2026 Asr

¶41