✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 05 Aug 2025

Sri Sadasivuni Ramanamuthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, Police are directed to conclude the investigation in the above crime and file a report in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a…

Judgment

Sri Sadasivuni Varadaraju, S/o Late Ramarao Garu, Aged about 60 Years, R/o 1-45-5/10, MVP Colony, Sita Mansion Apt, Penthouse Sector-1, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District

#5. Sadasivuni Kalyani, W/o Sri Sadasivuni Varadaraju R/o 1-45-5/10, MVP Colony, Sita Mansion Apt, Penthouse Sector -1, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District ...Respondents / 39 Cr.No. 2025 completing the investigation 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 particularly one in the Writ or order or direction, more pleased to issue a the inaction of the respondents in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring and taking action against the accused persons in Visakhapatnam Commissionerate Consequenfly, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondents to ensure that the investigation in Crime No. 39 before Respondent No. 3, be completed within a of 2025, presently pending authority to undertake legal action against the stipulated time frame, and to expeditious investigation and initiate all necessary accused persons in accordance with law PS, unconstitutional further direct the said Muvvalavanipalem arbitrary illegal bad, lA NO: 1 OF 2025 in the affidavit filed in Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to respondents to complete the investigation and to take necessary direct the in Cr.No.39 of 2025 by action against the accused persons in the case Respondent no. 3 within a stipulated time, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner; M/S. S LAKSHMI PRAMEELA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3; GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010400462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] ■XI n,. r. •• TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20514/2025 Between: 1 SRI SADASIVUNI RAMANAMUTHY, S/0 LATE RAMARAO GARU SRI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, KRISHNA RUSHIKONDA VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT R/O PLOT NO. 1, HOUSING D. NO. 9-192, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT, _ ...PETITIONER AND ESTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARY TO AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT OF COMMISSIONER

2.THE HOME REP. BY DEPARTMENT, ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM COMMISSIONERATE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

3.THE SHO, MUWIAPALEM PS, COMMISSIONERATE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT VISAKHAPATNAM 4 SRI SADASIVUNI VARADARAJU, S/0 LATE RAMARAO GARU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 1-45-5/10, MVP COLONY, SITA MANSION VISAKHAPATNAM SECTOR APT, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT PENTHOUSE 5 SADASIVUNI KALYANI, W/O SRI SADASIVUNI VARADARAJU R/O 1- SITA MANSION APT. PENTHOUSE 45-5/10, MVP COLONY, SECTOR -1 VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT -1 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner;

1.S LAKSHMI PRAMEELA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME 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 or order or direction more particularly one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in completing the investigation and taking action against the accused persons in Cr.No.39 o. 2025 of Muvvalavanipalem PS Visakhapatnam Commissionerate as bad arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional and Consequently It is prayed that this 7 Honble Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondents to ensure that the investigation in Crime No. 39 of 2025 presently pending before Respondent No. 3 be completed vjithin a stipulated time frame and to further direct the said authority to undertake expeditious investigation and initiate accordance with law” all necessary legal accused against persons action

#2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be given to the respondent/police to conclude the investigation in Crime No.39 of 2025 and file a final report.

#4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

#5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, Police are directed to conclude the investigation in the above crime and file a report in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. SRINiVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Police, Commissioner Visakhapatnam The Principal Secretary to Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravati Guntur District The Visakhapatnam District The Visakhapatnam District One CC to M/S. S LAKSHMI PRAM EE LA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies Visakhapatnam Commissionerate Commissionerate Muvviapalem SHO, PS,

#6. HIGH COURT DATED: 05/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20514 OF 2025 I ^ ^ Current eecuon IISEP2n» I -y/ DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

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; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Aug 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments