Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Chandra Sekhara Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 November, 2025
APHC010596272025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 31107/2025
Between:
1. D CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY, S/O. D. VENKATA REDDY, AGED
59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/0.H.N0.49-6M, MADDUR
NAGAR, NEAR KAKATEEYA SCHOOL, KURNOOL CITY, KURNOOL
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DIRECTOR, APFSL, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH
FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY (APFSL), 4TH AND 5TH
FLOORTECH TOWERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. CH MAHESH, S/O. CH. LAKSHMI NARASAIAH, AGED 35 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.87/1345-16-6, SARASWATHI NAGAR,
KURNOOL CITY, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...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 issue a Writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in
2
returning the documents by his Letter No.APFSL/DCV/455/2025, dated.29-
09-2025, the documents sent by the Hon'ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge-
Special Mobile Magistrate, Kurnool (FAC) to the 3rd respondent, to compare
the signatures obtained by the trail court from the petitioner in the open court
to compare his signatures on the unregistered lease agreement dated.22-10-
2024 which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to law, violative of
principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same, further
direction to the 3rd respondent to make request to the trial court for re-
submission of those documents and complete the FSL pertaining to
petitioners signatures and submit report to the Hon'ble trial court as and when
the equipment is resolved and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
suspend the Letter No.APFSL/DCV/455/2025, dated.29-09-2025 issued by
the 3rd respondent and further direct the 3rd respondent to re-call the said
documents for examination from the Hon'ble Trial Court to enable him to
submit report and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
3
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
"...to issue a Writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in returning the documents by his Letter No APFSL/DCV/455/2025 dated 29.09.2025, the documents sent by the Hon'ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge -Special Mobile Magistrate, Kurnool (FAC) to the 3rd respondent, to compare the signatures obtained by the trail court from the petitioner in the open court to compare his signatures on the unregistered lease agreement dated 22.10.2024 which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same, further direction to the 3rd respondent to make request to the trial court for re- submission of those documents and complete the FSL pertaining to petitioner's signatures and submit report to the Hon'ble trial court as and when the equipment is resolved and to pass......"
2. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farook, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to the trial court, stating that the particular machine required for examination was non-operational for the past two months and, therefore, the documents were being returned to the court.
4. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition challenging such communication of the FSL to the Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy before the trial court. 4
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATAJYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 12.11.2025 SNI 5 46 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATAJYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.31107 of 2025 Dated: 12.11.2025 SNI