The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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 No.7 in interfering into the peaceful life and liberty of the Petitioner and also interfering into the matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.9 and calling the Petitioner to the O/o. the Respondent No.7 and detaining and threatening to pay Rs.20.00 Lakhs compensation and settle the dispute with the Respondent No.9 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.7 not to interfere into the peaceful life and liberty and not to interfere into the matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.9 and not to threaten the Petitioner to give ihe Divorce to the Respondent No.9 by paying the compensation amount of Rs.20.00 Lakhs. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.7 not to interfere into the peaceful life and liberty and not to interfere into the matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.9 and not to threaten the Petitioner to give the Divorce to the Respondent No.g by paying the compensation amounf of Rs.20.00 Lakhs pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. UDIT NARAYAN Representing SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, ADVOCATE Gounsel for the Respondent No. 1,2 & B: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 to 7: SRI A. RAGHURAM AGP FOR STATE OF A.P Counsel for the Respondent No. 9: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER I i:i Ii .; i i . THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND ?HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHruDDIN WRIT PETITION No.34226 of 2025. ORDER: Learned counsel Sri D.Udit Narayan, representing learned counsel Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, appears for the petitioner. Sri A.Raghurarn, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State of Andhra Pradesh, appears for respondents No.3 to 7.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration that respondent No.7 - Station House Officer, P.Gannavararn Police Station, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh, is interfering in his peaceful life and liberty and also interfering in the matrimonial dispute between him and his wife respondent No.9. 2

4. Respondents No.3 to T are the authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The writ petition does n.t enclose any First Information Report or complaint.

5. on being asked, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State of Andhra pradesh appearing for respondents No.3 to 7 has stated on written instructions that respondent No.9 .had rodged a compraint before respondent No.7 on 27.o9.2o2s alreging harassment, demand of additional dowry and threats from the petitioner disclosing cognizable offence for which a preriminary enquiry was initiated. Despite repeated czrlrs to the petitioner, he did not attend the police station at any point of time. Based on the materials available a,cr nature of allegation- respondent No.7 has registered crime No.2o3/2o25 under Section g5 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023, and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, oh 13.11 .2o2s against the petitioner and two others. The alregation of the petitioner that respondent No.7 has been interfering in his peaceful life and riberty and matrimonial dispute is false / I ;' 3 and denied. No coercive or unlawful acts are committed by respondent No.7. It is submitted that respondent No.7 has acted strictly in accordance with law and procedure after receiving the cognizable complaint from respondent No.9.

6. Upon consideration of the stand of the respondent authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh, we are of the view that since a criminal case has been instituted by respondent No.9 - wife of the petitioner, in a police station in Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner should invoke the jurisdiction of the concerned Court for any relief.

7. Therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if &fly, shall stand closed. S SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGIS //TRUE COPY//

1. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate tOpUCI 2. Two CCs to 9P FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Te 3. TWO CCS tO SRI A. RAGHURANiI, AGP FOR HOME, AMArA 4. Two CD Copies Andhra Pradesh. IOUTI To, MMT O LS Kd CTION OFFICER Ii langana. [OUT] rvathi, State of HIGH COURT DATED i1711112025 ORDER WP.No.34226 of 2025 i Hii. .1 i4 r,: ()(/ (-) () 0 1 ti:C M f.'( z * +. * .11:1i1-1-'.:.i,C' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \