Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2025
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Sep 2025
- Bench
- VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Outcome
Disposed of
Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Date:09.09.2025 Dinesh ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA…
Judgment
Cause title
1. NUTHAKKI SRIDEVI, W/O. NAGA KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. BOYAPATI SUDHA RANI, W/O. M. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KRISHNAYAPALEM VILLAGE, YEARS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. AKULA JAYA SATYA, W/O. UMA MAHESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 OCC. HOUSEWIFE, RIO. YERRABALEM VILLAGE, YEARS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. BEZAWADA NARENDRA BABU, S/O. VENKAT APPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. PUVVADA SUDHAKAR, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. THULLUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. BEZAWADA SAMBAIAH( SAMBA SIVA RAO), SB. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. BEZAWADA RAMESH BABU, S/O. SAMBA SIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
8. BEZAWADA MADHU, S/O. SAMBA SIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT
9. VAKACHERLA VEERANJANEYULU, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
10. ALURI SURESH, S/O. SAMBA SIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEKKALLU VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
11. NADIGAMA BABU RAO, S/O. PRASANJI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
12. DANEKULA SUBBA RAO @ VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. NELAPADU VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2
13. DANEKULA RAMA RAO, S/O. SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. NELAPADU VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT
14. NANNAPANENI SARATH KUMAR, S/O. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. NELAPADU VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
15. KARUMANCHI APPAIAH, S/O. SAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
16. KARUMANCHI SRIDHAR,, S/O. APPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
17. RAMMINENI NARASIMHA SWAMY,, S/O. SUNDAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEKKALA VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
18. NANNAPANENI NAGA MALLESWARA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DONDAPADU VILLAGE, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
19. AVULA VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. KRISHNAYAPALEM, MANGALAGRI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
20. AVULA KIRAN @ VENKATA RAMA RAO,, S/O. SIVA RAMA KRISHNAIAH, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. AGED ABOUT KRISHNAYAPALEM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 40 YEARS,
21. EPURI PEDDABBAI,, SIO. DEVA SAYAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. KRISHNAYAPALEM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
22. AVULA NANDA KISHORE,, S/O. PRAKASH RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. KRISHNAYAPALEM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
23. KORITALA DHARMENDRA,, S/O. MADAN MOHAN RAO,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KRISHNAYAPALEM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
24. PEDDI NAGA SIVA PRASAD@ VENKATA SIVA PRASAD, S/O. AMARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. KRISHNAYAPALEM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. AND ...PETITIONER(S)
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINICIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI RURAL POLICE STATION, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAESH, AMARAVATI
3. THE TAHSILDAR, DUGGIRALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. SMT K MALLESWARI, W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITONERS, TAHSILDAR, DUGGIRALA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APCRDA, , REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, LENIN CENTER, VIJAYAWADA 3 ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K V BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the registration of FIR No. 69/2020, dated. 19-02-2020, registered by the 2nd respondent on the basis of complaint given by 4th respondent for offences under Sections. 120-B, 143, 341, 353, 506, 509 R/W.34 of IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section. 32 of Police Act, 1861 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, intentional and consequently quash the same as illegal in the interest of justice.
Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that, after completion of investigation in Crime No.69 of 2020 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, the Police referred the same as ‘false’. Hence, no further orders are required in this matter and the petition may be disposed of.
Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, recording the same, the petition may be disposed of.
Operative part
Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Date:09.09.2025 Dinesh ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.4744 of 2020 Dt.09.09.2025 Dinesh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7; Police Act, 1861.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 09 Sep 2025. The bench was VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.