Gangula Srinu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010167342026

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8503/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

1.GANGULA SRINU, S/O LATE BODIYYA AGED ABOUT 40 YRS. FANCY BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.6-72, PEDDAGUDEM, GOPALAPURAM -534316. GOPALAPURAM MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶9

2.DARAM GANESH, S/O LATE BHASKARARAO AGED ABOUT 44 YRS. FANCY BUSINESS R/O H.NO.6-72, PEDDAGUDEM, GOPALAPURAM -534316. GOPALAPURAM MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

3.DARAM SATTIPANDU, S/O LATE BHASKARARAO AGED ABOUT 38 YRS. FANCY BUSINESS R/O H.NO.6-72, PEDDAGUDEM, GOPALAPURAM -534316. GOPALAPURAM MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI-522237, AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA-533001.

¶15

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, III TOWN P.S. KAKINADA-533001.

¶16

4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, III TOWN PS, KAKINADA-533001.

¶17

5.BODDU VENKANNNA VIJAY SHAVUKARU, S/O VEERESU AGED ABOUT 40 YRS. DUBAI AGENT R/O H.NO. 1-315, NEAR RCM CHURCH, SHANTI NAGAR, TIMMARAJUPALEM (V)-534301.

¶18

2

¶19

NIDADAVOLE MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶22

1.SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR HOME

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORDER :

¶27

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

¶28

India seeking the following relief:

¶29

“… to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in illegally threatening the petitioners and his family members to come to III town PS Kakinada and to get the dispute settled in their station proclaiming that one Taneti Venkatarao lodged a complaint before them for recovery of amount of rupees thirty lakhs at the active instance of the 5th an respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitution al and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 not to harass the petitioner and his family members without following the due procedure required to be under iaw and grant such other just relief or reliefs as this HOn'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice and pass…”

¶30

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant

¶31

Government Pleader.

¶32

Sri Srinivasa Rao Pappu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, acting wholly outside the pale of their lawful authority, have been coercively summoning the Petitioners to the police station at the behest of Respondent No.5, thereby converting a purely civil dispute into a criminal proceeding. Such conduct, it is urged, is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the Petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300‑A of the Constitution of India. The police,

¶33

3

¶34

constitutionally enjoined to act as neutral protectors of law and order, have instead descended into the role of private enforcers, threatening dire consequences unless an exorbitant sum of thirty lakhs is paid, which is impermissible in law.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the factual narrative discloses a sustained pattern of harassment orchestrated by Respondent No.5, who, having unlawfully separated the Petitioner from his wife and embroiled him in false criminal cases, now seeks to extort money under the guise of a fabricated complaint. The Respondent Nos.2 to 4, instead of discharging their constitutional duty with impartiality, have become pliant instruments of private vengeance, summoning the Petitioners and threatening to foist false cases. The Petitioners, despite approaching the competent authorities including the Superintendent of Police, continue to face unabated harassment, which demonstrates the deep political influence wielded by Respondent No.5. Such abuse of police machinery undermines the very foundation of the rule of law and strikes at the Petitioners’ right to life, liberty, and property.

¶36

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner furthermore submits that in the absence of any efficacious alternative remedy, the Petitioners are constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is urged to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the actions of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 as illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of natural justice, and consequently direct them to desist from harassing the

¶37

4

¶38

Petitioners or compelling their attendance at the police station in relation to a civil dispute.

¶39

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the allegations advanced by the Petitioners are wholly concocted and bereft of truth, invented only to shield themselves from the lawful process of investigation. It is pointed out that on 09.03.2026, one Oleti Gangadhara Rao lodged a petition before the Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, narrating in detail how the Petitioners, under the guise of a gold auction scheme, induced him to part with a sum of Rs.6,00,000/‑, executed promissory notes, and thereafter not only failed to return the money but on 07.03.2026 criminally intimidated him and his wife with a knife, extorted Rs.4,300/‑ from his pocket, and threatened them with dire consequences. The said complaint was duly forwarded to the Inspector of Police, III Town L&O PS, Kakinada, who, after enquiry, registered Cr.No.26/2026 under relevant provisions of ‘the BNS’. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses under Section 180(3) of ‘the BNSS’, and is in the process of collecting technical evidence including call detail records to verify the presence of the accused at the scene. Thus, the Respondents submit that the police are only discharging their statutory duty in investigating a cognizable offence and have not acted arbitrarily or illegally as alleged. The Petitioners’ narrative is a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court and to obstruct the course of justice, and the Respondent Police shall abide by any directions issued by this Court.

¶40

5

¶41

This Court, upon careful consideration, is of the view that the police authorities cannot assume the role of arbiters in civil or monetary disputes and are not justified in summoning the Petitioners to the police station for the purpose of compelling settlement of alleged claims or insisting upon payment of Rs.30,00,000/‑. Accordingly, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed not to harass or call the Petitioners in relation to the alleged civil dispute or insist upon any monetary settlement. However, insofar as Crime No.26/2026 registered on the basis of the complaint of Oleti Gangadhara Rao is concerned, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations, and complete the investigation as mandated under ‘the BNS’.

¶42

With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

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

¶44

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶45

Date: 08.04.2026 VTS

Gangula Srinu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangula Srinu 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

N Anusha Vs the State of Ap

K Rajani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Hussain Basha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Boda Ganga Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Sudha Mani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Jampana Rambadhra Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh