A YASODHA KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Considering the submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
1. A YASODHA KUMAR, S/O A.NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. LECTURER, R/O BESIDE SRINIVASA RICE MILL, VISSNNAPETA NTR DISTRICT-521215. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI-522237.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH-522503. 3. THE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, ELURU DISTRICT-534001. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NUZIVEEDU TOWN POLICE STATION, NUZIVEEDU, ELURU DISTRICT-521201.
5. R MEENAKSHI, W/O A.YASODHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. MENTOR IN MATHEMATICS AP MIT, R/O N4 BLOCK, FLAT NO.302, FACULTY QUARTERS, AP HIT, NUZIVEEDU, ELURU DISTRICT-521201. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Police in interfering with the right to life and personal liberty by calling the Petitioner to the Police Station without any FIR (Crime) and pressurising to enter a settlement with Respondent No.5 for extraneous reasons and causing false counselling pending the HMOP No.276 of 2025 on the file of Principle Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Machilipatnam as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, vitiated by bias, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Police not to interfere with the right to life and personal liberty of the Petitioner and force any settlement with Respondent No.5 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME 2 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Operative part
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, by the Petitioner for the following relief:
... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Police in interfering with the right to life and personal liberty by calling the Petitioner to the Police Station without any FIR (Crime) and pressurising to enter a settlement with Respondent No.5 for extraneous reasons and causing false counselling pending the HMOP No.276 of 2025 on the file of Principle Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Machilipatnam as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, vitiated by bias, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondent Police not to interfere with the right to life and personal liberty of the Petitioner and force any settlement with Respondent No.5 and pass ...
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing for respondent State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that respondent Police are interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. Without there being any crime registered against the Petitioner, respondent police are calling her to the Police. Learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks time for getting latest instructions. Considering the submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent Police are directed to follow due process of law with regard to the subject matter 3 and not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station without there being any crime registered against her. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 08.01.2026 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 858 of 2026
08.01.2026 Mjl /*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Considering the submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 08 Jan 2026. 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.