Badavath Parushuram v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the Respondent No 3 in taking any action on the complaint dt. 19-11-2017 inspite of the endorsement of the 2nd respondent directing him to conduct personal enquiry and take necessary action as per facts and Law, as being illegal' arbitrary, un.iust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein to forthwith act upon the complaints dt. 3-1 1- 2017, 16-11-2O17 and 19-11-2017 and to take action in accordance with Law, and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case' lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir lumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto pass orders directing the respondent No. 3 and 4 here r to forthwith take immediate action against the culprits pursuant to the compli ints dt 3-11-2017' ,Vrit Petition, in the 16-11.2017 and 19-11.2017, pending disposal of the main interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between: Badavath Parushuram, S/o. Ramsingh, Rl/o Manubotulagadda village, Khanapur aoed about 47 yei rs, Occ. Agriculture, M-andal, Warang-al I lural District ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, I lome Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner of Police" Narsampet, War rngal District The Circle lnspector of Police,, Duggondi' Warangal Dit;l ict' The Station House Officer,, Khanapur Police Station W I angla District ....Resgx ndents/ResPondents Bhukva Eerva @ Doli s/o Lakhva, Aqed 52 Years' Oct: rgriculture, Rl/o firi i6"t[rri oiaoa Viii,-poaMandal:Khanapoor, Dist:!'arangal Rural-506 132. siinoth Earya S/o Lachya, Age:48 yqqrs, .O- cc: Agricult re, Ryo Manubothula ciooi Vil , Fo&tr,,tanoalixhaniapoorl Dist: Warangal Rr al-506 132 Lrt6tn (itt, slo-nemta Age:+S bcc:Agriculture' R7-o-Mirr ubothula Gadda Vill Po&Mandal :Khanapoor, Dist: Warangal Rural-506 1 32. Jatoth Parshya , S/o Hemla, Age:49' Occ: Agriculture, F /rl Manubothula Gadda Vill PO&Mandal:Khanapoor, Dist: Warangal Rur l-506 132' Banoth Chrnna Earva. S/o Raiu, Aqed:32, Occ: Agricu t rre, R/O Manubothula ciool v,rt Po&Mahdal:Khan'apoor, Dist:Warangal Rt r rl-506 132. 10 Aimeera Pul sinoh. S/o Lalu, Aqed:30, Occ: Agriculturt RyO Manubothula Oiooa vrrr , PO&Mandal:Khanipoor, Dist:Warangal Ft-al-506 132 11 Aimeera Kishan. S/o Balu. Aqed:35, Occ: Agrictlturt:, RyO Manubothula G5Jd; vitt poarrlandat:Khind.poor, Dist: WaEngal Rrrr r'-506 132 12 Aimeera Sevva. S/o Hanuma, Aqed:sO , Occ: Agriculrr re, RJO Manubothula - G;Aa; vitt , io&ttlanoal:Khanap6or, Dist:Warangal Ft'al-506 132

13. Guouloth Srinivas, S/o Venkatram, esed Z2'. Occ: Agriculture' RyO. iil,;",#t"hii;"G;;d;'fiiboi il;;;;i;Kii;n;d;i, Dit:waranlat Rurar-506 1 32 14"Jifl ?xAr.I3"3l?,5iji.aAr3,:i,3ffi f#i"$lTf aR/or,ranuboth,aGadda .....Proposed Respondents/Respondents 5 to 1 4 - Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Bhukya Earya @ Doli, Banoth Erya Chinna Erya' Ajmeera Pool Singh, Ajmeera Kishan, Ajmeera Shavya, Bhukya Vagya' Jutotu Krishnyu' Jutotu Partiya ,Guguloth Srinu as Respondents 5 to 14 in the pending WP No 1635 of 2018 as well as in all the lAs to secure the ends of justice' Counsel for the Petitioner: - ' Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FoR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER L.. THE HOI{OT'RABLE SRI JUsyrICE N.TI'KAJI AItrJI WRIT PETITIOII No.1635 OF 2Ol8 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Arti :le 226 of Constitution of tndia seeking the following relief: "....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direcli particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, the inaction of the Respondent No. 3 in taking any ac:i complaint dt. 19- 1 1 2017 inspite of the endorsem e 2d respondent directing him to conduct personal e take necessary action as per facts and Law, as bei a-rbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequtr the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein to forthwith ac: complaints dt. 3 1l- 2017, 16-ll-2017 a,nd,79-11-2) take action in accordance with Law, and grant such c or reliefs as tILs Hontrle Court deems frt and prcg circumstances o[ ttre case..,.." In, more r declare rn on ttre lr of the priry and .g illegal, tly direct upon the .7 and to her relief :r in the

2. None appears for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Govbrnment Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader su'r nits that the complaints submitted by the petitioner were drr ,' considered by the concerned police authorities. Upon exam: .ation, as the allegations were found to be civil in nature, the l etitioner was advised to pursue appropriate remedies before t te competent civil fomm, ard the complaints were accordin6;l r closed with an endorsement to that effect. He further conter ds that if the 2 petitioner was dissatished, he ought to have availed the remediesavailableunderlaw.Itisasettledlegalproposition that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for registration of a crime is not maintainable, except in rare and exceptional circumstances' 5 I have perused the material available on record' 6 The principal grievance of the petitioner is that his dated O3.lL.2Ol7, 16.ll'2017, and representatlons lg .l | .2017 were not considered by the respondent-police authorities, and consequently no crime was registered' However, the explanation offered by the respondents' as reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader' demonstrates that the said representations were examined' andaconsciousdecisionwastakennottoregisteracrime'as the matter was found to be civil in nature ' Therefore' the contention that the petitioner's representations were igrrored is unfounded. If the petitioner remained aggrieved by such non- 7 . registration, the proper course available was to avail remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr'P'C ) or the :EF,ai--c-1=:t€++:=- *___ '. r:- l I l d Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BI{ }S), as the case may be, such as approaching the Superi rtendent of Police under Section 154(3), seeking dir t ctions for investigation under Section I 56(3), or frlinS; a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.p.C./BNSS. Tt e Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu u State of U.p. (AIR 20( S SC 907) categorically held that in matters relating to non_ -egistration of FIRs or grievances about investigation, the {igh Court should not be approached directry under Articre 226 of t,,e Constitution without l-rrst exhausting the alternat r e statutory remedies. The sarne principle was reitera _r cl in M. Subramaniam u. S. Janaki (AIR 2O2O SC 3S7), u herein the Court emphasized that writ petition for registratic,r of an FIR simplicitor is nor maintainable unless rxceptional circumstances are shoum.

8. In view of this settled legal position, anct ,5inss ths petitioner has admittedly not availed the remedi: ; provided under the Cr.p.C./BNSS, and in the absenc : of any exceptional circumstances justifying exercise of e>1 -aordinar5r ''.-.writ j,risdiction, this petition is held to be not marr.r ainable. .r 4

9. Accordingly, the writ petition ts dismissed as not maintainable, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law if the cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, '.Sd/-B.REKHA RANI ASSISTAT.IT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .ISECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI Badavath Parushuram, S/o. Ramsinghi'ag€d about 47 years, Occ. _Agricullure.:-.Ry^o Manubotulagadda village, KlgnaOgi Mandal, Warangal Rural District.[OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana. at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies DAN/PMK HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 ORDER WP.No.1635 of 2018 t t-rtr ESET,N gi\ ( .J * ''t. . e\. tttL b. il t-t; .;t -: l! c1 ii *$/ rr.t ,-,rt \. 1'/' ?l )/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS Jtr-c =/*"