Mir Qaiser Hussain v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 I\IANDAMUS Declaring the action on the part of the respondents 3 to 5 in not registering the criminal case and investigating the same against respondent No 7, it members etc, having received the complaints dated 4-1-2018 and 7-1-2018 as being illegal, Arbitrary, Capricious, Malafide, not only contrary to Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but also contrary to the Judgments rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court and this Honourable Court reporte,l in 2014 (1) ALD (Crl) page 507 A.P. and other Judgments rendered by this Honorable Court, as being lllegal, Arbitrary, Capricious, Malafide, amcrunts to dereliction of duty, Violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution o' lndia, consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 to register a Criminal Case i.e., F.l.R against the respondent No 7, its members etc as per the complaint filed by the petitioner investigate the same at an earliest. lA NO: 1 OF 1 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 may be pleased to grant interim directions directing the respondents 3 to 5 to Register the FIR Under Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Respondent No 7, its menrbers, etc as per the complaints dated 4-1-2018 and 7-1-2018 forthwith and investigate the same. Counsel for ther Petitioner: SRI M. MEHDI HUSSAIN (NOT PRESENT) Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1toS: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Ms. SHAHANA PRAVEEN REPRESENTING SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN, S.C. FOR WAQF BOARD Counsel for the Respondent No.7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI 1 ORDER: This writ Petition is filed under Article 226 0f constitution of India seeking the following relief: '...pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more oaiicularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS Declaring Ih"-;;a; on the part of the respondents 3 to 5 in not *dS;.G the criminal case and investigating the same against ..ioorra.it NO T, it members etc, having received the '4-L-2o18 and 7-r-2or8 as being illegal' ;il;ffi;; ;;i;rqr, Capricious, Malafide, not only contraqr to Section 154 ;;1h" "Criminal Procedure Code, but also contrar5r to the j"ag*""as rendered by the Honorable supreme court and this Hon"ouraUte Court reported in 2Ol4 (1) ALD (CrI) page 5O7 A'P' '.rrJ-otfr"r Judgrnenis rendered by this Honorable Court, as U"i"g lllegal,. a.Uitt"ry, Capricious, Malafide' amounts to i"r"fi"tio"" of' duty. Viotati"e of Articles 14 and 2l of ClnstituUon of IndL, consequently direct the respondents 3 to i to-r"gi"ter a Criminal Casi i..e. F.I.R against the_respondent "its members etc as per the complaint f,rled-by the io-2, f"titio".t investigate the same at an earliest and pass"'" None aPpears for the Petitioner' Heard. Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government 2 3 PleaderforHomeappearingforrespondentNos.lto5andMs. ShahanaParveen,learnedcounselrepresentingMr.Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Waqf Board, appearing for respondent No'6' i i i 1 I I I I I I I I 2 4- Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the representations of the petitioner dated O4.01.2018 and OT .O1.2() 18 were duly considered by the respondent-police authorities. Upon examination, as the allegations were found to be civil in nature, the petitioner was advised to avail appropriate remedier; under civil law, and accordingly, the matter was closed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his representations were not considered is factually unfounded. It is further <:ontended that if tlle petitioner was aggrieved, he ought to have availed the remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973 (Cr.P.C). It is now well settled that without exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C., invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a direction to register zr case, is not maintainable.

5. I have perused the materials available on record. 6 Thr: substance of the grievance raised by the petitioner is'\. \ that his ::epresentations dated O4.01.2018 and 07.01.2018 haye not been acted upon by the respondent-police by registering a crime. Ilowever, as submitted by the learned Assistant 3 Government Pleader, the respondent-police have in fact considered the said representations and, upon applylng their d.iscretion, closed them on the ground that the allegations were civil in nature. This itself d,emonstrates that the representations of the petitioner were duly examined-

7. If the petitioner remained aggrieved by such action, the appropriate course was to invoke the remedies available under the Cod.e of Criminal Frocedure. The legal position on this aspect is no longer res integra. The Honble Supreme Court in Sakin vasu u. state of u.P. (AIR 2OO8 SC 9O7) categorically held that when a grievance is made regarding non-registration of an FIR or improper investigation, the aggrieved party must pursue remedies under sections 154(3), 156(3), or 2O0 of the cr.P-c., and cannot directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High court. This principle was reiterated in M. subramaniam u. s. Janaki (AIR 2020 SC 387), wherein the Supreme Court observed that a writ petition seeking a direction for registration of an FIR simpliciter is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, except in rare and exceptional circumstances where gross injustice or manifest illegalit5r is established. , { / 4

8. In the present case, having regard to the factual position and the settled legal proposition, it is evident that the petitioner, without exhausting the efficacious statutory remedies provided under ttre cr.P.c., has directly approached this court. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, il::e relief sought by the petitioner for a direction .to register a crime is not maintainable.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law, if the cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// oFFtcER /'

1. One CC to SRI M. tVlEHDt HUSSAIN, Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two ccs to.GP for HOME, High court for the stite of relangana at 3. one cc 1o sRl FARHAN AZAM KHAN, s.c. for WAKF BOARD topucl 4. Two CD (lopies Hyderabad [OUT] t To { B M/MP % HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 ORDER WP.No.2466 of 2018 u C) t {{ ( * THE S&r€ 2 1 rrg ift2fi z * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )-b