Dismissed¶32

G R Lakshmi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2026WP/3626/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed as abated on death of petitioner; legal representatives did not come forward to press petition; Article 226 mandamus; non-registration of FIR; complaint dated 10.02.2019; Lalitha Kumari v. State of U.P. referred in prayer; Superintendent of Police Krishna District Machilipatnam; SHO Reddygudem PS; respondents K Vijayabhaskar Rao and K Chayadevi; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed; Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi; 04.02.2026; Krishna District; Reddygudem; G R Lakshmi.

What did the court decide?

On learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the writ petitioner is no more and the legal representatives did not come forward to press the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed as abated, with no order as to costs. ¶32

G R Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010082722019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3368]

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶6

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3626/2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

G R LAKSHMI, W/O. NARASIMHA RAO, 72 YEARS, R/O. REDDYGUDEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL SECRETARY (HOME), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM.

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, REDDYGUDEM PS, REDDYGUDEM, KRISHNA DISTRICT,

¶15

K VIJAYABHASKAR RAO, S/O. BADRINARAYANA, 31 YRS., R/O. REDDYGUDEM VILLAGE AND MANDAI, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶16

K CHAYADEVI, W/O. BADRINARAYANA, R/O. REDDYGUDEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the

¶19

¶20

respondents 2 and 3 in not taking any action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.02.2019 and not even registering an FIR or causing any enquiries in terms of the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P, as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to take action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 10.02.2019 and to register FIR, and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.J U M V PRASAD

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶25

2.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 3626/2019

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner is no more and the legal representatives did not come forward to press the writ petition and the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly.

¶31