Jenu Venkateswar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Jenu Venkateswar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the Court's observations that, no action having been taken on the third-party PGRS complaint, Respondent No. 2 has no justification to call the petitioner to the police station hereafter or otherwise interfere with his personal liberty; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No. 2 (Station House Officer, Kalla Police Station) acted illegally, arbitrarily or unconstitutionally in calling the petitioner to the police station when no crime was registered against him and without any authority of law, and whether Respondent No. 2 should be directed not to call the petitioner to the police station or interfere with his personal liberty.

Court's answer

Since no action has been taken by Respondent No. 2 on the PGRS complaint submitted by the third party, there is no justification for Respondent No. 2 to hereafter call the petitioner to the police station or otherwise interfere with his personal liberty.

Ratio / Principle

With the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of; there shall be no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Judge (Dr Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.), disposed of Writ Petition No. 8210 of 2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Jenu Venkateswar Rao, aged about 68 years, of West Godavari District, who objected to being called to the Kalla Police Station by Respondent No. 2 (the Station House Officer) without any crime registered against him or authority of law, praying for a writ of mandamus restraining further summons and interference with his personal liberty. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Sri P. Ajay Babu), on written instructions, stated that a PGRS complaint by one Kolli Damodar Rao had prompted the call, but the petitioner did not cooperate for further inquiry and, the time for inquiry having lapsed, Respondent No. 2 had taken no further action on the complaint. The Court held that, no action having been taken on the third-party complaint, Respondent No. 2 had no justification to call the petitioner to the police station hereafter or otherwise interfere with his personal liberty, and disposed of the petition with these observations, without costs.

APHC010147562026

[3521]

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

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8210/2026

Between:

JENU VENKATESWAR RAO,, S/O LATE JENU SAMBAYYAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O H.NO.1-53-1 PEDAPETA, BONDADA VILLAGE, KALLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.- 522 238

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALLA POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. AT BHIMAVARAM, A.P. - 534 237.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.B CHANDRA SHEKHAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following: ORDER :

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

India seeking the following relief:-

2

Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.8210 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026

“…to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in calling the petitioner to the Kalla Police Station without any authority of law/no crime against the petitioner as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional consequently direct the 2nd Respondent not to call the petitioner to the police station nor interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioner herein and pass such order(s).”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home.

Sri B. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, aged about 68 years, has been called to the police station by Respondent No.2 without any valid reason. He therefore urges this Court to pass appropriate orders directing Respondent No.2 not to summon the petitioner to the police station and not to interfere with his personal liberty.

On the other hand, Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that one Kolli Damodar Rao had lodged a PGRS complaint, pursuant to which Respondent No.2 called the petitioner to the police station. However, the petitioner did not cooperate with Respondent No.2 for further inquiry. It is further submitted that, as the time for conducting the inquiry has lapsed, Respondent No.2 has not taken any further action pursuant to the said complaint.

Be that as it may, since no action has been taken by Respondent No.2 on the PGRS complaint submitted by the third party, there is no justification for Respondent No.2 to hereafter call the petitioner to the police station or otherwise interfere with his personal liberty.

3

Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.8210 of 2026

Dated 07.04.2026

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

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

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 07.04.2026 KMS

4

Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.8210 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026

98

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

Writ PETITION No.8210 of 2026

Date: 07.04.2026

KMS