Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/11146/2026 of Ravindra kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 11146/2026 Between: 1. RAVINDRA KUMAR, S/O. RAVINDRA BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 41
APHC010200702026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT PETITION NO: 11146/2026
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. RAVINDRA KUMAR, S/O. RAVINDRA BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 7-6-846/38, 6TH LINE, RAJEEV GANDHI NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522001
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI.-522237
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522001
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GUNTUR URBAN POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522001
4. THULLUR NAGAMANI, W/O. LATE.SARATH BABU, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 16-20-58, KONDAVARI VEEDI, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522001
5. THULLUR PICHAHARI, S/O.SARATH BABU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 16-20-58, KONDAVARI VEEDI, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522001
...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 direct the 2 and 3 respondents i.e., police authorities in interfering with the civil dispute of the petitioner, basing on the complaint of the unofficial respondents 4 and 5, without registration of any crime, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents nos. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioner in any manner in connection with the said civil dispute except in accordance with law IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be direct the respondents nos’ 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioner in any manner in connection with the said civil dispute except in accordance with law, pending disposal of the main Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following Order:
The instant writ petition is filed seeking necessary direction upon police authority not to call and harass the petitioner in pursuance to a complaint lodged by the 5th respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, on the basis of which, the 5th respondent has lodged a complaint, the Superintendent of Police has harassed him by calling to the police station. The conduct of the police regarding harassment of the petitioner is allegedly arbitrary and unconstitutional. Accordingly, he seeks necessary direction from this Court.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits written instructions contending inter alia that on 22.12.2025, 5th respondent presented a petition to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur District in PGRS programme mentioning certain allegations against petitioner. As per the provisions of law, the authority concerned has took out a preliminary enquiry on the basis of such complaint and called both the parties. Enquiry was held in the presence of petitioner and 5th respondent by summoning them to the police station. However, during enquiry in the presence of elders both sides informed to the police authorities that they would settle the matter by approaching the Bank officials. Since then the petitioner was not called to the police station.
4. Having received the written instructions from the State, it appears that summoning the petitioner to the police station is in response to the action of the police according to law. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that thereafter the petitioner was never called in connection with the said complaint. I find no arbitrary action by police authority in this case. At this juncture, it appears that nothing left in the writ petition to pass an order.
10. Taking note of the written instructions by the concerned authorities, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 28.04.2026 Note : C.C. by three days. (B/o.) SPP
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT PETITION NO.11146 of 2026
Dated 28.04.2026
Note : C.C. by three days. (B/o.) SPP