[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Shrustuyasaswini, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2025
APHC010594232024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 31215/2024
Between:
1. SHRUSTUYASASWINI,, D/O. RAGHU RAMAIAH AGED 31
YEARS,OCC LEGAL PRACTITIONER R/O. VENKATADRI
NAGAR, H.NO. 80/134 A-5, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 518002
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI,GUNTURDISTRICT
2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RANGE
KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRANTHI NAGAR , OLD DSP
OFFICE, NEAR 3 TOWN POLICE STATION NANDYAL
DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-518501.
4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALLAGADDA
NANDYAL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 518543
5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, ALLAGADDA RURAL POLICE STATION,
NANDYALDIST, ANDHRA PRADESH 518543
6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALLAGADDA RURAL POLICE
STATION ALLAGADDA , NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH-518543
7. SESHADRI RAJAGOPALAN, ,S/O RAJAGOPALAN, R/O. B4 NO
9,SRILAKSHMI FLATS 26 STREET NANGANALLUR,CHENNAI -
600061 PRESENTLY AT C/O. SRI AHOBILA MUTT 8-A AARTHI
NAGAR , EAST TAMBARAM ,SELAYIUR, CHENNAI- 600059.
8. R NEELAMEGHAM, CHAIRMAN OF AHOBILA MUTT (ANDHRA
PRADESH AND TELANGANA) C/O. SRI AHOBILA MUTT 2-2-
20/B,BAGHAMBERPET DURGA BAI DESHMUKH COLONY,MC-
LANE,HYDERABAD-500013.
//2// WP.No.31215 of 2024
9. A MADHAVAN, ,OCC MANAGER IN SRI SANNIDHI R/O. 5/3,
SARVAMANGALA HOUSING COLONY , AARTHY NAGAR
STREET ,KAMARAJARSALAI , TAMBARAM,
KANCHEEPURAM, TAMILNADU 600059.
...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 may be pleased issue a Writ, order or
direction, one more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus
declaring the inaction of Respondent No. 6 in not considering and
registering complaint against the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 for acts of
sexual harassment and repeated threats to the petitioners life, as
illegal, arbitrary and unjust, thereby violating the petitioners
fundamental rights under the Constitution of India and relevant
enactments and also defeating the purpose of the ratio laid down in
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SCC 3011 and the
provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and consequently
direct Respondent No. 6 to register the complaint against Respondent
Nos. 7 to 9 and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 pleased to direct the Respondent No. 6 to consider
the complaint of the Petitioner and register an FIR pending disposal of
the writ petition and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRINIVAS BOBBILI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
//3// WP.No.31215 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.31215 of 2024
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on part of respondent
No.6 in considering and registering the complaint filed by her
against respondents Nos.7 to 9 for acts of sexual harassment
and repeated threats to the petitioner’s life.
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed as the Legal Manager in Sri
Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Devastanam, Ahobilam and that she
was entrusted with the duty of assisting the Director in all the
legal matters connected with land administration of the
Devastanam.
3. The petitioner was subsequently transferred from the
Devastanam to Matham by 8threspondent who is the chairman of
Ahobila Matham.
4. It is submitted that such action was in collusion with
7threspondent and that it is alleged that the petitioner was
escalating the instances of sexual harassment by the
7threspondent. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have been
physically and mentally harassed by the 7threspondent. It is
further submitted that the petitioner had escalated the misdeeds
of 7threspondent to the higher authorities of the mutt. It is also
//4// WP.No.31215 of 2024
alleged in the petition that abusive posting in the Facebook
assassinating the character of the petitioner were also made.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation to
the 6threspondent on 17.09.2024. It is admitted that though a
complaint was filed by the petitioner, the 6threspondent did not
register any case and also did not give any acknowledgment for
the complaint submitted against the 7threspondent. It is submitted
that the petitioner has also received threatening calls from
various numbers allegedly warning the petitioner not to proceed
with the complaint against respondent Nos.7to 9. It is submitted
that the petitioner also submitted a complaint to 2ndrespondent
on 17.11.2024 and 3rdrespondent. A further representation dated
03.12.2024 was made to 2ndrespondent. However, there was no
progress in registering the complaint.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
it is the bounden statutory duty of the police to register a
complaint soon after receipt of a complaint from a woman
alleging offences against the woman. Ideally the police ought to
have registered a zero FIR and carried out investigation.
Learned Senior counsel further submits that the police ought to
have taken a proactive action in crimes against woman.
However, the inaction on the part of the respondent police in
ignoring the complaint of the petitioner speaks volumes of the
//5// WP.No.31215 of 2024
manner in which the police have shown their insensitivity
towards the complaint filed by the petitioner.
7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits
that a detailed counter is filed and the written instructions as
received from the concerned Officer are also placed on record. It
is submitted that the petitioner did not submit any written
complaint to the 6th respondent and that the petitioner had
submitted a complaint to the 2 ndrespondent.
8. The said complaint was endorsed to the 4th respondent for
enquiry and that on instructions of the 4threspondent, the
petitioner was also called to the police station on 24.09.2024 and
the respondents 5 and 6 had contacted the respondents 7 to 9
over phone in presence of the petitioner. It is also submitted that
the petitioner herself had submitted a written statement by
expressing her satisfaction over the enquiry on her
representation dated 25.11.2024 and 03.12.2024.
9. The counter filed by the 6threspondent is referred to by the
learned Government Pleader during the course of her arguments
and submits that in so far as the complaint relating to the alleged
social media postings against the petitioner, the contents of the
complaint would amount to offences under Section 66A of the IT
Act and those offences were struck down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of
//6// WP.No.31215 of 2024
India1 and that the 6threspondent has also obtained legal opinion
from the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The alleged offences are
punishable under Section 66-A of the Information Technology
Act and Section 500 read with Section 499 of IPC. A private
complaint ought to be filed by the petitioner if the petitioner is so
aggrieved with the said postings which amounted to offences
under Section 499.
10.It is also submitted in the counter that the complaint has filed a
copy of the complaint along with the annexures to the writ
petition dated 22.04.2024. In the said complaint also there are no
allegations against the other respondents. The 6th respondent
has further submitted that the repeated allegations of the alleged
derogatory, abusive and defamatory postings in the social media,
particularly the Facebook were verified by the 6th respondent and
that he could not find any such abusive postings against the
petitioner. The petitioner has filed a complaint dated 17.09.2024
which evidently is unsigned by the petitioner and is now made a
part of the pleadings only to maintain the writ petition. The
Learned Government Pleader also submits that the police have
completed preliminary enquiry as mandated under Section
173(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
BNSS) and have ascertained that a false complaint is lodged
against the respondents.
1 (2015) 5 SCC 1
//7// WP.No.31215 of 2024
11. The learned Government Pleader for the State relied on
Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary2, this Court held at
para 34 reads as follows
34. Similarly, in AlquePadamsee and others v. Union of India
and Others the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as
follows –
“8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following
directions:-
⦁If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police
officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained
in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to
be adopted and observed.
⦁It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the
police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the
aforesaid provisions.
⦁ So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for
the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. The
Government concerned would do well to deal with the matter
within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
⦁We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.”
12. (Emphasis supplied)
⦁A reading of this judgment would make it clear that the writ
was filed because the police did not register the FIR and
hence directions were sought.
13.Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to
6. Perused the material on record.
14.The grievance of the petitioner that the police have not acted
upon her complaint and that no investigation was done on her
complaint is unfounded as seen from the record. The material on
2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 562
//8// WP.No.31215 of 2024
record reflects that the police have conducted preliminary
enquiry as per Section 173(3) of BNSS.
15.The investigating officer has categorically stated that they have
conducted preliminary enquiry after the complaint was forwarded
by the respondent No.4 and they found no evidence for the
allegations alleged in the complaint.
16.In such circumstances, the petitioner would have to invoke the
appropriate provisions of BNSS and take necessary steps before
a competent Court. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner is
concerned to declare the inaction on part of the respondent No.6
in registering a complaint against the respondents 7 to 9 is
concerned the issue has been adequately addressed by the 6 th
respondent and the same is evident from the counter and the
written instructions produced before the Court.
17.On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere
leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law.
18.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands
closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 04.07.2025
KGM
//9// WP.No.31215 of 2024
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.31215 of 2024
Dated 04.07.2025
KGM
[ad_2]
Source link