Kilari Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

KILARI SRIDEVI, W/O KILARI RAVI KURNAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 11-407/2, NAGARALU, 2'ID LANE, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR, GENERAL, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KROSURU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR RURAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

KILARI VIJAYA SURESH KUMAR, S/0. GOPAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

KILARI GOPAL RAO, S/O. VENKATESHWARLU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, RIO. BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

2

¶19

KILARI SUSHEELA, W/O. GOPAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, RIO, BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶20

KILARI PUNNAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶21

KILARI MOHAN KUMAR, S/O. GOPAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL.

¶22

KILARI CHAITANYA KUMAR, S/O. GOPAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 0CC AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶23

KILARI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 0CC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶24

KILARI SHIVA NAGESHWARI, W/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 0CC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.1 to 4 in not taking any appropriate action on the FIR No. 56 of 2018 dt.03-02-2018, P.S. Krosuru Under Section 447, 506, 379 r/w 34 IPC as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to take necessary action against the Respondents No. 5 to 12 as per Criminal Procedure Code basing on the complaint of the petitioner and pass

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶28

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 Respondents No. 2 to 4 to take immediate action on FIR No. 56 of 2018 dt.03- 02-2018, P.S. Krosuru Complaint Under Section 447, 506, 379 r/w 34 IPC against

¶29

3

¶30

the Respondent No. 5 to 12, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.SHAIK KARIMULLA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

4

¶37

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

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.7109 OF 2019

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶41

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.1 to 4 in not taking any appropriate action on the FIR No. 56 of 2018 dt.03-02-2018, P.S., Krosuru Under Section 447, 506, 379 r/w 34 IPC as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to take necessary action against the Respondents No. 5 to 12 as per Criminal Procedure Code basing on the complaint of the petitioner and pass…”

¶42

Heard Sri Shaik Karimulla, learned counsel for the writ petitioner appeared through video conference and Sri R.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶43

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on the earlier occasion submitted that police completed investigation in Crime No.56 of 2018 of Krosuru Police Station and filed final report on 28.06.2019 before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli, and notice was served to the petitioner on 31.01.2026 regarding filing of final report before the Magistrate referring the case as ‘false’, and if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, petitioner has to approach the Magistrate for necessary redressal in accordance with law.

¶44

In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that petitioner may be given liberty to approach the Magistrate for necessary redressal in accordance with law.

¶45

5

¶46

Therefore, in the light of above submissions, the writ petition is closed at the stage of admission, without going into merits of the case. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for necessary redressal in accordance with law, if she is aggrieved by the final report filed by the police. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶48

JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

12.03.2026 Pmk

6

66

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