Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Mode Nagalakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2026
APHC010249332026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO
KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 17239 OF 2026
Between:
1. MODE NAGALAKSHMI, W/o Late Mode Naga Subbarao, Aged
about 40 Yrs, Occupation Daily Wage Agricultural Cooli, R/o Hi.
No. 2-15, Palakayathippa Village, Koduru Mandal, Hamsaladevi,
Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 521328
2. Mode. Vamshi,, S/o Late Mode Naga Subbarao, Age about 23
Years, Occ Daily Wage Welding Work Cooli, R/o Hi. No. 2-15,
Palakayathippa Village, Koduru Mandal, Hamsaladevi, Krishna
District, Andhra Pradesh - 521328
...Petitioners
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented by the
Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariate, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Andhra
Pradesh.
2
3. The Station House Officer, Naguluppalapadu Police Station,
Prakasam District.
4. The SubInspector of Police, Naguluppalapadu Police Station,
Prakasam District.
5. Mode Narender, S/o Maha Lakshamaiah, Age about 29 Yrs,
Occupation Welding Work, R/o R/o Hi. No. 2-15, Palakayathippa
Village, Koduru Mandal, Hamsaladevi, Krishna District, Andhra
Pradesh - 521328 Presently Residing at Kanigiri, Andhra Pradesh
Cell No 9000951200.
...Respondents
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 a writ, order or orders or
direction more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the
action of the Official Respondent No. 2 to 4 is not registering the
FIR on the complaint dated 27-05-2024 given by the Petitioner
No.1 who is the Mother of the Petitioner No.2 who met with
accident while returning from Kanduru to home village
Hamsaladevi for exercising his vote right General Elections on
14-05-2024 in connection with Legislative General Elections in
2024 which was dashed to the Anjaneya Swamy Statue at
Nagulauppalapadu, Ongole Prakasam District and when he came
3
unconscious and he was shifted from the said spot of incident in
the ambulance 108 to Rims Hospital at Ongole, then after he
shifted from Rims Hospital to Sarva Super Specialty Hospital at
Vijayawada and the information communicate to the Police same
day and as well as to the BAJAJ FINSERV LOAN (BFL) of the
Vehicle AP 40 BJ 4602 Pulsar 150CC (Blue Colour) and
thereafter the Petitioner No.1 given the written complaint on 27-
05-2024 to the SI of Police, Naguluppalapadu Police Station and
the Police assured that to take the investigation and drag the
matter and when the Writ Petitioner came to know the conclusion
that the Police is avoiding to take any action in respect of the
missing of the said vehicle and when he came to conclusion that
it is not the missing of the vehicle but it is a act of theft of the said
vehicle on that the Petitioner who is the purchaser of the said
vehicle under Hypothecation Agreement from Finance Company
BAJAJ FINSERV LOAN (BFL) a necessary required substance of
the application subject matter written and by post was sent to the
official Respondents No. 2 to 4 Superintendent of Police,
Prakasam District and since then the Petitioner No.1 who is an
widow is running pillar to post to the office of the SHO (R4) and to
the Office (R2) Superintendent of Police but till this day the said
official Respondents No.2 to 4 have not even registered the FIR
4
in respect of the said matter though the said offence is a theft
U/Sec. 303 (2) B.N.S and the same is cognizable offence and the
other offences U/Sec. 79, 351 (2) (3) B.N.S., are also which are
cognizable as such the action of the said Official Respondents
No.2 to 4 is violative of mandatory provision of section 173 (4) to
193 B.N.S.S and also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and to pass
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 to direct the Official
Respondents No.2 to 4 to register the FIR and proceed with
Investigation and File the Final Report/Charge-sheet and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioners: SATHEESH KANNA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 17239 of 2026
The Court made the following Order:
Instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Official Respondent
No. 2 to 4 is not registering the FIR on the complaint dated
27-05-2024 given by the Petitioner No.1 who is the Mother
of the Petitioner No.2 who met with accident while
returning from Kanduru to home village Hamsaladevi for
exercising his vote right General Elections on 14-05-2024
in connection with Legislative General Elections in 2024
which was dashed to the Anjaneya Swamy Statue at
Nagulauppalapadu, Ongole Prakasam District and when
he came unconscious and he was shifted from the said
spot of incident in the ambulance 108 to Rims Hospital at
Ongole, then after he shifted from Rims Hospital to Sarva
Super Specialty Hospital at Vijayawada and the
information communicate to the Police same day and as
well as to the BAJAJ FINSERV LOAN (BFL) of the Vehicle
AP 40 BJ 4602 Pulsar 150CC (Blue Colour) and thereafter
the Petitioner No.1 given the written complaint on 27-05-
2024 to the SI of Police, Naguluppalapadu Police Station
and the Police assured that to take the investigation and
drag the matter and when the Writ Petitioner came to know
6the conclusion that the Police is avoiding to take any action
in respect of the missing of the said vehicle and when he
came to conclusion that it is not the missing of the vehicle
but it is a act of theft of the said vehicle on that the
Petitioner who is the purchaser of the said vehicle under
Hypothecation Agreement from Finance Company BAJAJ
FINSERV LOAN (BFL) a necessary required substance of
the application subject matter written and by post was sent
to the official Respondents No. 2 to 4 Superintendent of
Police, Prakasam District and since then the Petitioner
No.1 who is an widow is running pillar to post to the office
of the SHO (R4) and to the Office (R2) Superintendent of
Police but till this day the said official Respondents No.2 to
4 have not even registered the FIR in respect of the said
matter though the said offence is a theft U/Sec. 303 (2)
B.N.S and the same is cognizable offence and the other
offences U/Sec. 79, 351 (2) (3) B.N.S., are also which are
cognizable as such the action of the said Official
Respondents No.2 to 4 is violative of mandatory provision
of section 173 (4) to 193 B.N.S.S and also violative of
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass”.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of
Respondent/State and perused the material placed available on
record.
7
3. Conspectus of facts in the present Writ Petition is that,
despite the petitioners’ complaint to the police personnel, the
respondent police are not acting upon the same by registering an
FIR, thereby lodging criminal proceedings.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing
on the written instructions of the Respondent/Police, submits that
preliminary enquiry of the police reveals that the petitioners’
complaint does not disclose commission of any cognizable
offence. As such, Writ Petition itself is not maintainable.
5. Now, coming to the central issue in the lis, despite the
petitioners’ complaint, the police are not registering an FIR; the
aggrieved party directly initiating proceedings before the Hon’ble
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
6. In this juncture, it is appropriate to note that the issue
involved in the present lis, is squarely covered by the Order of
this Court dated 23.07.2026 in WP No.18425 of 2026, wherein
this Court appreciated the facts and law by taking into
8
consideration of the dictums laid down by the Apex Court
including latest expression held in Sujal Vishwas Attavar and
another vs. State of Maharashtra and others1, wherein it was
held as under:
“7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find
that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when
alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were
available. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not
been registered by the police, or having been registered,
proper investigation is not being conducted, then the
remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ
jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to
the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of
the circumstances warrant otherwise.
8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023
(erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) provides a
structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal
prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that
information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the
police station and an FIR is registered under Section
173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR,
recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent
of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter,
before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS.
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 798
9
9. xxxx.
10. xxxx.
11. The High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition
merely because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is
made out against a statutory authority. Ordinarily, where a
statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the
same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional
jurisdiction [See: Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir
Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra)]. In the present facts, the
complainant Company has not exhausted the sequential
statutory remedies available under BNSS. There is,
therefore, no foundation to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the High Court for the reason that efficacious
and efficient alternative remedies exists. Hence, at this
stage, we find the instant writ petition to be premature,
and, therefore, not fit to be entertained.”
7. Accordingly, by applying the above ratio to the present
case too, this Writ Petition is disposed of as under:
i) Liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the
learned jurisdictional Magistrate by filing appropriate
complaint under Section 175(3) and 210 read with 223 of
BNSS, 2023.
10
ii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits
and whether or not the complaint discloses criminal
offences.
iii) Equally, it will be open to all the stakeholders to avail
remedies in terms of the statutory realm.”
There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Registry is directed to append a copy of the Order of this
Court dated 23.07.2026 in WP No.18425 of 2026 along with the
instant order.
Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Date: 03.08.2026
PSA
11
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 17239 of 2026
Date: 03.08.2026
PSA
