Animeti Syamala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2026WP/4957/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

police protection; writ of mandamus; Articles 14 and 21 Constitution of India; Section 173(3) BNSS 2023 preliminary enquiry; FIR Crime No.8 of 2026 woman and child missing; matrimonial dispute; family counselling notice; apprehension of danger to life; SPSR Nellore; Muthukur Police Station; Station House Officer direction; State of Andhra Pradesh Home Department; Singaraju Mahaswetha Varma; P. Ajay Babu AGP; Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; disposed 05.03.2026; W.P. No. 4957/2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.4 to take necessary steps to ensure protection of the life and limb of the Petitioners; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶¶37

Animeti Syamala Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to Respondent No.4 to take necessary steps to ensure protection of the life and limb of the Petitioners; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondents 3 and 4 in not taking cognizance, not providing police protection and not considering the Petitioners' representation dated 07.02.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and whether they must be directed to provide necessary police protection to the Petitioners. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

Respondent No.4 (Station House Officer, Muthukur Police Station) is directed to take necessary steps to ensure protection of the life and limb of the Petitioners.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Since Petitioner No.1 apprehends danger to her life and the lives of her two children, the police are required to provide necessary protection.

¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction), Amaravati — Writ Petition No. 4957 of 2026, decided 05.03.2026 by Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao. Four petitioners, led by Petitioner No.1 Animeti Syamala (wife of Respondent No.5 Animeti Nagendra), sought a writ of Mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary the inaction of Respondents 3 (Superintendent of Police, Nellore) and 4 (Station House Officer, Muthukur Police Station) in not taking cognizance, not providing police protection and not considering their representation dated 07.02.2026, alleging peril to life and limb at the hands of Respondent No.5, and invoking Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. On written instructions, the Assistant Government Pleader submitted that Respondent No.5 had complained his wife and two children were missing, on which FIR in Crime No.8 of 2026 (woman and child missing) was registered; preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 disclosed matrimonial disputes between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5, and a family-counselling notice to Petitioner No.1 went unattended. Holding that where Petitioner No.1 apprehends danger to her life and the lives of her two children the police are required to provide necessary protection, the Court directed Respondent No.4 to take necessary steps to ensure protection of the Petitioners' life and limb and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010086422026

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4957/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

ANIMETI SYAMALA, W/O. NAGENDRA.AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O.MUTHUKUR VILLAGE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-524344. 2.

¶9

ALAPAKA VENKATA RAMANAIAH,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PATURU VARI KANDRIGA, MUTHUKUR VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-524344. 3.

¶10

ALAPAKA PADMAMMA,, W/O.ALAPAKA VENKATA RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,PATURU VARI KANDRIGA, MUTHUKUR VILLAGE,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-524344. 4.

¶11

ALAPAKA SEENU,, S/O.ALAPAKA VENKATA RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,PATURU VARI KANDRIGA, MUTHUKUR VILLAGE,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-524344.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY( HOME), STATE SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 522237

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANAGALGIRI,ANDHRA PRADESH. 522503 3.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE HEADQUARTERS, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 524001. 4.

¶17

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUTHUKUR POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 524344. 5.

¶19

ANIMETI NAGENDRA, S/O. NOT KNOWN,AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN YEARS, R/O. MUTHUKUR VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 524344

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶22

1.SINGARAJU MAHASWETHA VARMA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR HOME

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶26

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶27

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not taking cognizance and not providing the police protection and not considering the representation, dated07.02.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, and consequently direct the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for providing necessary police protection to the petitioner in the interest of justice …”

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶29

Ms. S. Mahaswetha Varma, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits

¶30

that there is a peril to the life and limb of the Petitioners at the hands of Respondent No.5.

¶31

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.5 lodged a complaint before the police alleging that his wife and two children were missing. Accordingly, the police registered FIR in Crime No.8 of 2026 for woman and child missing. During preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

¶32

¶33

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), the police noticed certain matrimonial disputes between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5. The police also served a notice on Petitioner No.1 for family counselling, but Petitioner No.1 did not attend.

¶34

Be that as it may, since Petitioner No.1 apprehends danger to her life and the lives of her two children, the police are required to provide necessary protection.

¶35

In view of the above facts and circumstances, Respondent No.4 is directed to take necessary steps to ensure protection of the life and limb of the Petitioners.

¶36