HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
DHARAMANA TAVITAYYA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 20443/2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition context regarding fir registration. (Para 1) |
| 2. absence of representation highlights procedural shortcomings. (Para 2) |
| 3. lack of evidence leads to dismissal of the petition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. reference to alternative remedies allowed. (Para 5) |
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
“.... a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking further steps in registering the F I R on the petitioners complaint Dt 10 06 2025 and 24 06 2025 inspite of repeated requests though it is a cognizable offence as nothing but illegal arbitrary highhanded and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgment in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh rendered by the Honlole Supreme Court of India and consequently direct the Respondents to take action by registering the F I R on the petitioners complaint Dt 10
06 2025 and 24 06 2025”
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.
3. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the PGRS application is closed on the ground that there is no breaking of lock and Iron Almarah in the house and the police have not seen any kind of offence in the house as stated by the petitioner.
4. For ready reference, the written instructions are extracted hereunder:
“I further submit that I personally enquired in the village in the presence of the neighbors of the petitioners Tangi Tarakeswararao, s/o Appalaramanna and Muddada Srinu are opened that not seen the synonyms in the house and nobody come forward to speak about the issue.
Hence, I pray the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam with requesting that there is no need to take action against the petition of the petitioner as there is no Synonyms in the house of the petitioner. ”
5. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.