Kammula Pawan Sai, S/O Subbarao vs State Of Ap, Rep By Its Home Secretary, Secretariat, Vellagapudi Amaravathi.-522237 & Ors

Balaji Medamalli, J

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeing the following relief:

...to issue an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in calling the petitioner for the investigation without any proper complaint and allegations since 2nd March, 2026, as arbitrary, illegal and capricious and violating the provisions of the BNSS as well as the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and consequently direct the respondents to not to call the Petitioner without any proper and valid reason to the police station and pass such order or other orders...

Brief facts, of the case of the Writ Petitioner, are that the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent had several business transactions, and in December 2025, entered into an arrangement for supply of bulk gold at the prevailing market rate, which was duly completed. Though disputes arose regarding the financial transactions, the same were amicably settled through the mediation of the Bullion Merchant Association, and all dues were cleared. Despite such settlement, the 3rd Respondent sought to reopen the issue citing fluctuations in gold prices and issued a legal notice containing false allegations, to which the Petitioner furnished a detailed reply. The 3rd Respondent thereafter indicated that he may pursue appropriate civil remedies, and the Petitioner expressed willingness to participate in such proceedings. It is further submitted that, thereafter, the 3rd Respondent approached the 2nd Respondent Police and, at his instance, the Petitioner has been repeatedly called by the police since March, 2026, despite there being no formal complaint or FIR registered against him, with an apparent intention to pressurize the Petitioner in respect of a purely civil dispute. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, representing Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

During the course of hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions dated 06.04.2026, submits that, as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada, the 2nd respondent had called the petitioner for an oral enquiry in connection with the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) petition, for the purpose of forwarding an enquiry report. However, the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry and, upon expiry of the stipulated time, the 2nd respondent forwarded the report to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent visited the Police Station and gave his statement pursuant to the instructions of the Commissioner of Police. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent never called the petitioner to the Police Station and that, at present, the petitioner is not required in connection with any case.

Recording the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's daily life and personal liberty, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.