JANGALAPALLI NATARAJA vs THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR HOME — WP/12631/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010237282026

Filing Number

WP/19003/2026

Filing Date

29-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/12631/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Balaji Medamalli

Coram

Balaji Medamalli

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

HOME DEPARTMENT (MISC.MATTERS) ( 22 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JANGALAPALLI NATARAJA

    Adv. DASAM DURGA SHIVA SAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR HOME

  2. 2.The Director General of Police,

  3. 3.The Superintendent of Police,

  4. 4.The Inspector of Police,

  5. 5.Kurra Sreenivasulu,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Balaji MedamalliView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/12631/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the writ petition, directing police authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's daily life and personal liberty except through due process of law. The court accepted the government's submission that the dispute was purely civil in nature, involving a debt repayment disagreement, and therefore outside police jurisdiction. Key Facts & Reasoning: Petitioner Jangalapalli Nataraja alleged that police repeatedly called him to the station and pressured him to settle a civil debt dispute with another party over Rs. 8 lakhs borrowed under a promissory note. The police acknowledged calling him for inquiry but clarified that upon determining the matter was civil (payment of due amounts with no cheating evidence), they advised the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The court upheld this position, emphasizing police should not intervene in purely civil disputes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-May-2026

    Admission (Home)

    Balaji Medamalli

  4. 04-May-2026

    Y. Lakshmana RaoView PDF

  5. 04-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 29-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/12631/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/12631/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the writ petition, directing police authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's daily life and personal liberty except through due process of law. The court accepted the government's submission that the dispute was purely civil in nature, involving a debt repayment disagreement, and therefore outside police jurisdiction. Key Facts & Reasoning: Petitioner Jangalapalli Nataraja alleged that police repeatedly called him to the station and pressured him to settle a civil debt dispute with another party over Rs. 8 lakhs borrowed under a promissory note. The police acknowledged calling him for inquiry but clarified that upon determining the matter was civil (payment of due amounts with no cheating evidence), they advised the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The court upheld this position, emphasizing police should not intervene in purely civil disputes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case