Dismissed¶30

Naidu Sivaram Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2026WP/40455/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: infructuous writ petition dismissed; writ of mandamus; Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; registration of crime / FIR; written complaint dated 03-10-2018; Station House Officer Kothapatnam Police Station; Prakasam District; State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home; Article 226; Article 14; IA No. 1 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC closed; no order as to costs; Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; 12-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were ordered to stand closed. ¶30

Naidu Sivaram Prasad Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were ordered to stand closed.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of the 2nd respondent (Station House Officer, Kothapatnam Police Station) in discharging his statutory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in registering the crime pursuant to the petitioner's written complaint dated 03-10-2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, warranting issuance of a writ of mandamus directing registration of the crime and investigation. (Framed in the prayer of the writ petition; the court did not adjudicate this issue, as the petition was dismissed as infructuous.)

¶14

Ratio / Principle

On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for further adjudication and had become infructuous, the High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

¶30

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single member bench (Honourable Sri Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi), decision dated 12th February, 2026. Writ Petition No. 40455 of 2018, filed by Naidu Sivaram Prasad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 the inaction of the 2nd respondent, the Station House Officer, Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasam District, in discharging his statutory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in registering the crime pursuant to the petitioner's written complaint dated 03-10-2018, and consequently directing registration of the crime and investigation in accordance with law; IA No. 1 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC sought the same pending disposal of the main petition. Before adjudication of the merits, learned counsel for the petitioner (Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi) submitted that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for further adjudication and that the petition had become infructuous. Recording that submission, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, made no order as to costs, and directed that pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. The Section 154 / FIR-registration grievance was not adjudicated; no precedent cases were cited in the order.

¶1

[3368]

¶2

APHC010839822018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 40455/2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

NAIDU SIVARAM PRASAD, S/O. LATE RAMALINGAM, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. ETHAMUKKALA, KOTHAPATNAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶12

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTHAPATNAM POLICE STATION, PRKASAM DISTRICT

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in discharging his statutory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in registering the crime pursuant to the written complaint dated 03-102018 submitted by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the crime pursuant to the written complaint dated 03-10-2018 submitted by the petitioner and cause investigation in accordance with law, and pass

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶16

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 2nd respondent to register the

¶17

¶18

crime pursuant to the written complaint dated 03-10-2018 submitted by the petitioner and cause investigation in accordance with law, pending disposal of the main writ petition, and pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.40455 of 2018

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication, and the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶29

Sri R. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, representing the respondents, is in attendance.

¶30

Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in

¶32

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶33

12^th February, 2026 cbn

¶34

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶35

¶36

¶37

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