B Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

B Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner directed to approach the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by filing private complaint(s) under Section 190 read with 200 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 210 read with 223 of the BNSS; the Jurisdictional Magistrate to bestow attention to the complaint(s) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus should be issued declaring the inaction of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in not registering a crime, not conducting a just and fair enquiry, and not investigating the Petitioner's complaints dated 01-10-2025, 06-10-2025 and 13-10-2025 against Respondent No.6 as illegal, and directing registration of an FIR, fair enquiry/investigation and action against Respondent No.6. +1 more

Court's answer

Recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed, directing the Petitioner to approach the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by filing private complaint(s) under Section 190 read with 200 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 210 read with 223 of the BNSS; the Jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to bestow attention to those complaint(s) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders; there shall be no order as to costs; and miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Ratio / Principle

When there is inaction on the part of the Respondent Police in registering a complaint as FIR, the Petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing a complaint under Section 190 read with 200 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 210 read with 223 of the BNSS.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Single Judge (Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao), Writ Petition No. 33469 of 2025, disposed on 10.04.2026. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction of the police (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5) in registering an FIR, conducting enquiry or investigating his complaints dated 01-10-2025, 06-10-2025 and 13-10-2025 against Respondent No.6 alleging illegal mutation of her name in revenue records for his agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 60, 61, Tootipala Village, Makavarapalam Mandal, Anakapalli District using forged and fabricated documents, sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Assistant Government Pleader recorded that the police had conducted a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS and found the complaints civil in nature, and hence did not proceed further. Holding that where the police fail to register a complaint as FIR, the complainant has an alternative efficacious remedy, the Court directed the Petitioner to file private complaint(s) before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with 200 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 210 read with 223 of the BNSS, with the Magistrate to attend to the complaint(s) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

APHC010647432025

[3521]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 33469/2025

Between:

1.B SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE SRI BRAHMAJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCGOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O. TOOTIPALA VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. O/O VRO OF KANNAMPET VILLAGE, RAVIKAMATAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER

AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2.

2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT VIJAYAWADA GUNTUR HWY, MANGALAGIRI-522503, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.

4.THE ASST SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARSIPATNAM DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5.

5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAKAVARAPALEM POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6.

6.SMT VIRODHI SATYAVATHIDEVI, W/O. VIRODHI RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCBUSINESS, R/O. H-NO. 3-14/1, KONDAPALEM VILLAGE, ROLUGUNDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI

2

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 531114

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.BONDEMPALLY RAMULU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

2.NANI BABU ROBBA

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following relief:

“… to issue Writ order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in not registering a crime, not conducting a just and fair enquiry, and not undertaking investigation on the basis of petitioners detailed complaints dated 01- 10-2025, 06-10-2025 and 13-10-2025 made against respondent No. 6, relating to illegal mutation of her name in revenue records by using forged and fabricated documents pertaining to petitioners agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 60 61, situated at Tootipala Village, Makavarapalam Mandal, Anakapalli District, Andhra Pradesh is illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and opposed to the principles of natural Justice and consequently direct to the official respondents to forthwith register an FIR, conduct a fair and impartial enquiry and investigation, and take action including arrest of the 6th respondent strictly in accordance with law duly taking into consideration of the petitioners complaints dated 01-10-2025, 06-10- 2025 and 13-10-2025 and pass…”

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Assistant

Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.6.

Sri Bondempally Ramulu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

that the complaints dated 01.10.2025, 06.10.2025 and 13.10.2025 submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 against Respondent No.6 have not been considered by registering FIR.

3

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the complaints were considered by the Respondent Police by conducting a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of ‘the BNSS’ and observed that the complaints are civil in nature and therefore the Police could not proceed further.

Sri Pandu Ranga Vital, learned Counsel for Respondent No.6 also reiterates the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

Be that as it may, when there is inaction on the part of the Respondent Police in registering the complaint as FIR, the Petitioner has got an alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing complaint under Section 190 read with 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed, directing the Petitioner to approach the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing private complaint(s) under Section 190 read with 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to bestow attention to those complaint(s) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 10.04.2026

4

VTS