Lisa Gill, CJ.

1. Present appeal has been filed by appellant/ writ petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 05.03.2026 passed by learned Single Bench, whereby respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, has been directed to act upon complaint dated 02.02.2026 submitted by appellant/ writ petitioner within a period of two weeks. In case complaint dated 02.02.2026 is not available with respondent no.4, petitioner was permitted to submit said complaint within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of copy of order. Upon such submission, respondent No.4 was directed to act upon the complaint and take necessary steps for preservation of evidence, if any, available at alleged scene of offence. Respondent No.4 was further directed to take appropriate steps for protection of life of writ petitioner.

2. Present appellant/ writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6047 of 2026 with the following prayer:

                  “to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action and inaction of the respondent police in not registering an FIR/Zero FIR on the petitioner’s complaints as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently directing immediate registration of FIR/Zero FIR directing an independent investigation by the CBI or a Court-monitored SIT, directing recovery forensic examination and preservation of all electronic and physical evidence including wireless solar PTZ CCTV cameras, with on board memory cards and digital data, directing the police to take appropriate coercive steps in accordance with law, including arrest and production for judicial remand, granting immediate police protection and witness/victim protection, monitoring the investigation, initiating action against erring officers awarding compensation…”

3. It is the case of petitioner that he is a practicing advocate at Andhra Pradesh High Court and a member of Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association, besides being active in politics having contested as an independent candidate from Anantapur Parliamentary Constituency, Anantapur Urban Assembly Constituency and Kalyandurg Assembly Constituency in 2024 General Elections. It is stated that he also contested as an independent candidate from Kalyandurg Assembly Constituency in 2019 elections. It is pleaded in the writ petition that on 07.01.2026, legal notice on behalf of petitioner’s mother was issued to accused, seeking lawful share in joint family property which triggered hostility, conspiracy and subsequent violent acts against petitioner.

4. On 01.02.2026 a mob of over two hundred persons, it is alleged, committed criminal trespass between 10.00 AM and 12.50 PM; forcibly snatched petitioner’s mobile phones; broke and removed wireless solar PTZ CCTV cameras installed by petitioner, assaulted him indiscriminately; and abducted him in a Toyota car bearing No. KA04MU7112. It is further pleaded that petitioner somehow managed to escape and dialed 100, disclosing a cognizable offence and imminent danger to his life, but no action was taken by police authorities. He also approached Superintendent of Police, Anantapur and submitted a detailed written complaint seeking registration of FIR or Zero FIR, but no steps were taken. Accused, it is alleged, on 03.02.2026 returned petitioner’s phones which had been forcibly taken but had formatted them and completely erased all data, thereby destroying crucial electronic evidence. Petitioner’s wireless solar PTZ CCTV cameras, along with their on-board memory cards, were not returned and continued to be in illegal possession of accused. Petitioner also submitted a detailed complaint to Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association on 07.02.2026. Various complaints were reportedly submitted before Director General of Police, Addl. Director General, and Inspector General of police, but no action was taken on complaints so submitted. It is stated in the complaint(s) that petitioner is temporarily settled in Royal Gardens, Chinnampalli. For his personal safety, he had installed four Wireless CCTV cameras in Royal gardens. On 01.02.2026, petitioner was sleeping and was woken up by his brother at about 10.00 AM, who informed him that about two hundred people had committed criminal trespass. They attacked petitioner’s mother, who was standing in front of him, beat her up and pushed her away. They indiscriminately punched and kicked his younger brother and also forcibly abducted petitioner in Toyota car. It is stated in the complaint that they did not return three mobile phones taken forcibly and four wireless solar PTZ CCTV cameras were taken away by climbing poles and breaking the cameras.

5. Learned Single Bench upon considering the facts and circumstances, disposed of the writ petition with directions as noted in foregoing paras.

6. Present appeal has been filed challenging said order dated 05.03.2026, with a grievance that direction issued by learned Single Bench is completely vague and violates principles of natural justice, transparency and judicial accountability. Complete effective and meaningful relief in the case has not been afforded to petitioner and enquiry by an independent agency, specifically CBI should have been ordered.

7. Petitioner argued that an independent enquiry should have been ordered, besides ensuring preservation of evidence as well as providing protection to petitioner, non-speaking order dated 05.03.2026, should be set aside. It was thus prayed that present appeal be allowed as prayed for.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Home, Mrs. A. Jayanthi, raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ appeal itself, in view of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and others, (2017) 5 SCC 533. She further submits that complete and proper directions have been issued by learned Single Bench, pursuant to which appellant had submitted a representation dated 16.03.2026, before Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu District, requesting implementation of impugned order dated 05.03.2026. Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu endorsed the same to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kalyandurgam vide Circular dated 23.03.2026 and in turn SDPO, Kalyandurgam forwarded it to Inspector of Police, Kalyandurgam Rural Circle on 26.03.2026, which was received by Inspector of Police, Kalyandurgam Rural Circle on 30.03.2026. It is further stated that representation submitted by petitioner was only a xerox copy and not original. However, in order to conduct an enquiry into the matter, Inspector of Police, Kalyandurgam Rural Circle, personally went to Chinnampalli Village along with staff to verify the alleged scene of offence and to secure presence of writ petitioner with the intention of collecting material evidence. However, petitioner was not present and none of villagers came forward to provide any material in respect of alleged incident. SHO, Settur Police Station registered Cr.No.27/2026 u/s 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 324(4), 303(2), 79, 351(2), r/w 3(5) of BNS Act, on the basis of endorsement of Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri, pertaining to representation submitted by petitioner on 09.02.2026, which contained original complaint dated 02.02.2026. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed CC.No.1606 of 2026, wherein detailed position has been set forth.

9. Learned Government Pleader submits that petitioner is not coming forward with material evidence and material witnesses, if any; mother and brother of petitioner have not cooperated with investigating agency by simply saying that it is the petitioner who is looking after entire affairs of the case. It is further pointed out that petitioner himself is involved in more than six criminal cases i.e. Cr.Nos.1) 130/2016 U/s 279, 429 IPC; 2) 79/2016 U/s. 341, 353, 506 r/w 34 IPC; 3) 111/2017 U/s.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC; 4) 54/2018 U/s. 501, 506, 507 IPC and Section 67 of IT Act 2000; 5) 80/2018 U/s. 341, 355, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act; 6) 86/2018 U/s. 341 r/w 34 IPC; 7) 95/2023 U/s. 188, 189, 505(2) IPC and 8) 09/2026 u/s. 132, 351(2) of BNS Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act. Dismissal of this appeal was sought.

10. We heard the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Home.

11. It is to be noted at the outset that when preliminary objection regarding maintainability of appeal was put to the petitioner, he refused to respond and continued to repeat that appeal should be decided in terms of grounds of appeal as mentioned. Yet again, a question was put to him regarding judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, which is duly mentioned in the grounds of appeal to the extent it is held therein that an aggrieved person can claim investigation, but has no right to claim an investigation by any particular agency like CBI and that even in the case of a proper investigation not being made, aggrieved person has specific remedies under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. (which now corresponds to Section 175(3) of BNSS). Upon being asked whether any action had been taken by petitioner in this regard, he again did not provide any answer but continued addressing the Court as per his will.

12. Be that as it may, we have perused the file carefully. It is a matter of record that matter at hand has a distinct criminal flavour. It is specifically held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) that vital factor for determination of availability of an intra court appeal is the nature of jurisdiction invoked by party and true nature of order passed by learned Single Bench. At best, appellant/ writ petitioner could have raised the question of appropriate steps not being directed to be taken for protection of life and liberty, but we note that a specific direction in this regard has already been given by learned Single Bench to respondent No.4. Petitioner was unable to point out any subsequent threat that he may have faced which was brought to notice of respondent No.4 with no action being taken by the authorities.

13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ appeal is dismissed with liberty to appellant to avail remedy/remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law. As appeal is being dismissed on the ground of maintainability, there is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter. Reference thereto is only for purpose of decision of this appeal only.

No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.