Thammaneni Bhaskar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2026WP/6137/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-registration of complaint by SHO, Kanigiri Police Station; Chapter XIII BNSS 2023; Article 226 mandamus; conditional direction to register complaint dated 22.01.2026 if cognizable offence disclosed; State of Andhra Pradesh and officials respondents; W.P. No. 6137/2026; decided 05.03.2026; Markapuram district (old Prakasam).

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 (Station House Officer, Kanigiri Police Station) directed to register the Petitioner's complaint dated 22.01.2026 if it discloses a cognizable offence, in accordance with law; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶¶39

Thammaneni Bhaskar Reddy Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010112332026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3521]

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6137/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

1.THAMMANENI BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. CHINNA VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/0.D.N0.1-3A, THAMMANENIPALLI VILLAGE, VELIGANDIA MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT, (OLD PRAKASAM).

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, PALNADU DISTRICT.522237

¶14

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM).523316

¶15

3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANIGIRI POLICE STATION, KANIGIRI, KANIGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM).523230

¶16

4.CHOPPARAPU VENKATA RAO, S/O.RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O. D.NO. 3-3-A, 3RD WARD, BOYAPALEM, KANIGIRI NAGARAPANCHAYAT MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM)-523230.

¶17

5.KETHINENI VENKATA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-38, 3RD WARD, BOYAPALEM, KANIGIRI NAGARAPANCHAYAT MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM)-523230.

¶18

¶19

6.CHOPPARAPU SIVA MALYADRI, S/O. THIRUPATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. R/O. D.NO. 3-8C, 3RD WARD, BOYAPALEM, KANIGIRI NAGARAPANCHAYAT MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM)-523230.

¶20

7.CHILLA VENKATA SAI BABU, S/O.OBULU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-23, 3RD WARD, BOYAPALEM, KANIGIRI NAGARAPANCHAYAT MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM)-523230.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER :

¶28

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

¶29

India seeking the following relief:

¶30

“… to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the inaction of respondents no 3 in not registering the Crime against respondent no 4 to 7 and not taking any action as per the provisions of Chapter XIII of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 on the report given by the petitioner dated 22012026 as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice Article 21 300A and consequently direct the respondents no 3 to forthwith register a crime against the respondents no 4 to 7 and the other culprits on the report given by the petitioner dated 2201 2026 as per the provisions of Chapter XIII of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha 2023 in the interest of justice and equity and to pass…”

¶31

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant

¶32

Public Prosecutor.

¶33

Sri P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

¶34

that a complaint dated 22.01.2026 was submitted by the Petitioner to the

¶35

¶36

Respondent No.3, but the same was not registered as a case in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under ‘BNSS’.

¶37

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the

¶38

Writ Petition may be disposed of directing to consider the complaint by Respondent No.3.

¶39

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent No.3 to register the complaint dated 22.01.2026 submitted by the Petitioner if it discloses a cognizable offence, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

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

¶41

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶42

Date: 05.03.2026 VTS

Thammaneni Bhaskar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thammaneni Bhaskar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pogula Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Munnam Venkata Nageswara Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Shaik Mazaharulla Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sanjeeva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Animeti Syamala Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nidumolu Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kiran Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh