Atmuri Vijaya Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in harassing the petitioner by repeatedly calling to the 4th respondent police without proper notice or reason and making her to wait in the police station from morning till midnight, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, besides violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and

¶19

2

¶20

consequently direct the Respondent No 4 not to repeatedly call the petitioner to 4th respondent police station without following due process of law and pass

¶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 pleased to direct the Respondent No; 4 not to repeatedly call the petitioner to 4th respondent police station without following due process of law and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.M SOLOMON RAJU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR HOME

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 2346/2026

¶30

ORDER :

¶31

The petitioner has approached this Court against the alleged illegal action of Respondent No. 4 in harassing the petitioner by repeatedly calling her to the police station.

¶32

Written instructions on behalf of the Home Department have been placed on record.

¶33

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that one Yenugu Vama Vijaya Sagar lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer/Respondent No. 4 on 30.12.2025 against the petitioner. Based on the said complaint, the petitioner was called to the police station for a preliminary enquiry. It is further submitted that, after the preliminary enquiry, it appeared to the police authorities that the complaint was incorrect, baseless, and misguided. Therefore, the police did not register any case.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondent, upon receipt of a copy of the said written instructions, submits that the alleged xerox copy of the written complaint does not contain any date. However, the police authorities, without following due process of law and without registering any crime against the petitioner, have indiscriminately threatened the petitioner. Thereby, the action of the police authorities has been challenged before this Court.

¶35

4

¶36

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Home

¶37

Department has placed on record a xerox copy of the complaint filed by one Yenugu Vama Vijaya Sagar; however, the said xerox copy does not contain any date. Nevertheless, written instructions have been placed on record, and

¶38

at this juncture, this Court cannot dispense with the same.

¶39