The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that state authorities cannot remain passive in the face of credible complaints alleging serious cybercrimes, particularly when financial and operational harm is alleged. The Court’s directive to conclude a preliminary enquiry within one month establishes a clear procedural obligation, reinforcing the constitutional duty to uphold natural justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jammula Prasada Rao, is a private independent Multi System Operator and broadband service provider. He entered into an agreement on 29.05.2019 with Andhra Pradesh State FiberNet Limited (APSFL). Allegedly, following this agreement, he suffered substantial financial losses due to data theft, unauthorized disruption of services, intimidation, and other cyber-enabled malpractices. Despite repeated attempts to seek redress through formal channels, no investigative action was initiated by the police.
Key Facts
- The petitioner lodged a formal police complaint on 08.09.2025, which was acknowledged by the Central Complaints Cell (CCC) under reference CCC/2025.
- A follow-up complaint was filed through the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) on 02.11.2025, with acknowledgment under reference PGRS GNT 20200902340.
- No First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and no investigative steps were taken by the Arundelpet Police Station or any other agency.
- The petitioner made multiple representations to the police and higher authorities, all of which remained unaddressed.
- The losses claimed include disruption of business operations, loss of client trust, and direct financial damage attributable to data breaches.
Procedural History
- 29.05.2019: Agreement entered into with APSFL.
- 08.09.2025: First police complaint lodged and acknowledged by Central Complaints Cell (CCC/2025).
- 02.11.2025: Second complaint filed via PGRS (PGRS GNT 20200902340).
- 07.05.2026: Writ Petition No. 3310/2026 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226.
- 07.05.2026: Court heard arguments and passed order.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that the inaction of the police authorities amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to equality and protection under Article 14 and the principle of natural justice. He argued that the delay and silence of the authorities amounted to tacit approval of the alleged criminal conduct.
The State, through the Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that a preliminary enquiry had been initiated but was still in its nascent stage. It further argued that judicial intervention at this stage might prejudice the ongoing investigation.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the Station House Officer, Superintendent of Police, and Central Complaints Cell, to immediately register an FIR and initiate a full investigation into the allegations of data theft, service disruption, and intimidation. He also sought a declaration that the inaction was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the persistent inaction of police authorities in the face of a detailed complaint alleging cybercrime and financial harm constitutes a violation of natural justice and the State’s constitutional obligation to enforce the law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the principle that the State has a non-delegable duty to protect citizens from criminal harm, particularly in the digital domain. He cited State of U.P. v. Raj Narain to argue that silence in the face of credible allegations amounts to abdication of duty. He emphasized that the complaint contained specific details of offenders, dates of incidents, and nature of data breaches, making it more than a mere grievance. The failure to even register a preliminary enquiry, he argued, rendered the complaint process meaningless.
For the Respondent
The State contended that a preliminary enquiry was underway and that the investigation required time to gather technical evidence, including digital logs and network traces. It argued that judicial intervention at this stage could compromise the integrity of evidence collection and set a precedent for premature interference in police investigations. It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to assert that courts should not ordinarily interfere in the investigative process unless mala fide is established.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the State’s interest in preserving investigative autonomy but rejected the argument that inaction could be justified under the guise of ongoing enquiry. The Court noted that the complaint was filed in September 2025 and, as of the hearing date in May 2026, no FIR had been registered and no tangible steps had been taken. The Court observed that a preliminary enquiry is not a substitute for action but a threshold mechanism to determine whether an FIR should be registered.
"It is very curious to this Court that though the respondent-authorities have all information, they are of view that intervention of this Court may prejudice their process of collection of evidence. This Court is not in consonance with the instructions of the Station House Officer concerned."
The Court held that the prolonged delay, spanning over eight months without any discernible progress, amounted to a failure to discharge the State’s duty under Article 21 and the rule of law. The Court emphasized that natural justice requires not only fairness but also timeliness. The absence of any communication to the complainant, no notice of delay, and no indication of steps taken rendered the process arbitrary.
The Court further clarified that the State’s duty to investigate is not contingent upon the complainant’s status or the complexity of the case. Where allegations involve financial harm, data theft, and disruption of essential services, the threshold for initiating an enquiry is low, and the burden to explain delay is high.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: The Station House Officer, Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur, is directed to conclude the preliminary enquiry within one month from the date of this order (i.e., by 07.06.2026). If sufficient material is found, an FIR must be registered immediately. No costs are imposed. The Court emphasized that failure to comply will be viewed as contempt of court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Cannot Delay Indefinitely Under the Guise of Preliminary Enquiry
- Practitioners must now insist on timelines for preliminary enquiries in cybercrime and financial fraud cases.
- A delay exceeding 60 days without any communication or progress may be challenged under Article 226.
- Courts will treat silence as prima facie violation of natural justice, shifting the burden to the State to justify inaction.
Cybercrime Complaints Demand Prompt Action, Not Bureaucratic Inertia
- Complaints involving data theft, service disruption, or digital fraud are no longer treated as civil disputes.
- The Court’s recognition of financial loss from cyber incidents as actionable harm expands the scope of criminal jurisdiction.
- Legal notices should now include a 30-day ultimatum for police response before filing a writ petition.
Judicial Intervention Is Not Overreach - It’s Enforcement of Constitutional Duty
- Courts will not defer to police discretion when there is total inaction.
- The Bhajan Lal doctrine does not shield negligence; it protects against premature interference, not perpetual delay.
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are now a viable remedy for complainants facing police apathy in cybercrime matters.
