Sangu Nagamani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP - 522503.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT- 518502

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT- 518502

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, NANDYALA TALUKA POLICE STATION, NANDYALA DISTRICT- 518502

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDYALA TALUK POLICE STATION, NANDYALA DISTRICT- 518502

¶18

SANGU PRASANNA KUMARI NAGOORI PRASANNA KUMARI, D/O. NAGOORI NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. ILIURI KOTHAPETA, OPPOSITE DARGA (ROAD), BANAGANAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT- 518001

¶19

AMARNATH, S/O. HARINATH R/O. KOTA VEEDHI, NEARANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, POLUR POST, NANDYALA DISTRICT-523169

¶20

2

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent no. 2 to 5 in not investigating into the suspicious death of writ petitioners son, PVN Prasadappa by not considering the representation of the writ petitioner dt. 10.09.2025 and consequently direct an independent agency to conduct investigation into the suspicious death of Mr. PVN Prasadappa and put the culprits to justice and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

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 Respondents no 2 and 3 to conduct further investigation into the death of the Mr. PVN Prasadappa to ascertain the suspicious nature of his death within a certain period, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.J.JYOTHI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR HOME

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 2818/2026

¶32

ORDER :

¶33

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the Police in not taking action on the petitioner’s complaint dated 10.09.2005, which was submitted through the Superintendent of Police, Nandyala, regarding death of his son. It has been alleged that although the said complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police, through registered post, the police failed to take due cognizance of the same.

¶34

It is further submitted that the death of the petitioner’s son occurred under suspicious circumstances. After his death, the petitioner had no opportunity to raise immediately any suspicion. However, after three months of his son’s death, the petitioner’s daughter-in-law left the matrimonial home and subsequently performed a second marriage. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the police on 12.07.2025.

¶35

Written instructions were placed on record by the respondent authorities. It has been noted therein that due to family disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 6, false allegations have been leveled regarding the suspicious death of his son. Such suspicion was not expressed in the complaint dated 12.07.2025. Moreover, it is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that since respondent No. 6 left the matrimonial home along with her child and is presently residing with respondent No. 7, the complaint was lodged.

¶36

4

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the complaint was sent by the petitioner through registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Nandyala, and the same was received by the concerned authority. Whether the complaint discloses a false case or not, it has to be decided after thorough investigation by the police authorities.

¶38

At this juncture, though the police authorities have prima facie opined that there exit family disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 6, the facts suggest that the complaint is still pending for consideration.

¶39

Taking note of the submissions of the parties, respondent No. 4 is directed to register an F.I.R after conducting preliminary enquiry within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Nandyala on 10.09.2025. Respondent No. 4 shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law but shall not take aggressive steps against unofficial respondent unless it is truly required for purpose of investigation of this case and inform the progress of the investigation to the petitioner as and when required.

¶40

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

__________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶43

Dated:05.05.2026. SSA

Sangu Nagamani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangu Nagamani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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