Disposed¶40

P. Gousia v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jan 2026WP/36667/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

police interference in civil dispute; summons without FIR registration; without written notice; preliminary enquiry; complaint by respondent No.10 to Superintendent of Police Tirupati endorsed 25.11.2025; Tadipatri Urban Police Station; Ananthapur District; Article 226 mandamus; Articles 14, 21 and 300A; writ disposed with direction not to interfere except under due process of law; no costs; Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; 02.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the police (Respondent Nos. 4 to 6) not to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties except under due process of law; no order as to costs. ¶40

P. Gousia Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the police (Respondent Nos. 4 to 6) not to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties except under due process of law; no order as to costs.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent police (Respondent Nos. 4 to 6) are acting illegally, arbitrarily and without jurisdiction in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 7 to 12. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

Recording the State's submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the police are directed not to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The non-interference direction is qualified: police may act only except under due process of law; no order as to costs.

¶41

Key takeaways

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Judge (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa), Writ Petition No. 36667/2025 decided 02.01.2026: P. Gousia sought a mandamus under Article 226 declaring illegal the action of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 (Station House Officer, Sub Inspector and Assistant Sub Inspector, Tadipatri Urban Police Station, Ananthapur District) in interfering with civil disputes between her and Respondent Nos. 7 to 12 and in repeatedly summoning the petitioner and her family to the police station without registration of any FIR or written notice, alleging violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A. The Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Sri P.Ajay Babu) stated that on a complaint by respondent No.10 to the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati, endorsed to the 5th respondent on 25.11.2025, the petitioner was called for preliminary enquiry, did not appear, and no crime was registered against her; police were not interfering in civil disputes. None appeared for the petitioner. Recording the submissions, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the police not to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties except under due process of law, with no order as to costs, and closing miscellaneous petitions, if any, as a sequel.

¶1

APHC010717582025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3396]

¶5

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36667/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. GOUSIA, , W/O. P. AMIR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 15-252-1 GANDHI NAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515411

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HOME DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522238

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT515001

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TADIPATRI URBAN, TADIPATRI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515001

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER S H O, TADIPATRI URBAN POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPURDISTRICT-515411

¶16

THE SUB INSPECTOR, TADIPATRI URBAN POLICE STATION ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-515411

¶17

THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR, TADIPATRI URBAN POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT- 515411

¶18

SANDYA, R/O. DOOR NO. 15/170, GANDHI NAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515411

¶19

¶20

PARVAN ALIAS NANNA, S/O. AKBAR, R/O.GANDHI NAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515411

¶21

ANJANAMMA, R/O. DOOR NO. 15/117, GANDHI NAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515411

¶22

FARIDA, W/O. KHAJAVALI, R/O. DOOR NO. 15/167, GANDHI NAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515411

¶23

KHALANDER, R/O. DOOR NO. 15/28, GANDHI NAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515411

¶24

MANSOOR, R/O. DOOR NO. 15/28, GANDHI NAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515411

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.S VARADARAJULU CHETTY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR HOME

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36667/2025

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer:

¶34

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, in interfering with the civil disputes between Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 to 12 and in repeatedly summoning the petitioner and her family members to the police station without registration of any FIR, without issuance of written notice as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction besides violating Petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 not to interfere in the civil disputes between Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 to 12.…”

¶35

None represented on behalf of the petitioner. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the respondent-police are interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and summoning the petitioner and her family members to the police station without there being any crime registered against them.

¶36

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that on the complaint made by the respondent No.10 before the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati, which was endorsed to the 5^th respondent on 25.11.2025, the petitioner was called to the police station for preliminary enquiry. But the petitioner did not appear before the police for preliminary enquiry and no crime has been registered against her.

¶37

¶38

He would further submit that the police are not interfering in the civil disputes

¶39

between the parties.

¶40