High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in non-following the provisions o'f 173$) of BNSS Acl2023 (Old Criminal Procedure Code Section 154 (3) CrPC) and non-initiating to register the FIR and non-initiating to take the necessary action against the Respondent No.6 to g by registering the crlminal case, who threatened the petitioner and forcibly removed his paint shirt and insulted him in front of the their team and abused the petitioner in firthy ranguage and blackmailed and threatened to kiil him if r inform the same to anybody is highry illegal, arbitrary, u ncon stitutionar and vioration of Articres 14, 1s and 21 of the constitution of lndia and also violation of the principles of Narural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 to foilow the provisions of the 173(4) of BNSS Act 2023 (or(r criminar procedure code Section i54 (3) crpc) and to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28-12-2024 and to register the crime against the Respondent No. 6 to g, and take the necessary action against them, who threatened the petitioner and forcibry removed his paint shirt and insulted him in front of the their team and abused the petitioner in firthy ranguage and blackmailed and threatened to ki the petitioner if he inform the same to anybody. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to foilow the provisions of the 173(4) of BNSS Act 2023 (ord criminal Procedure code section 154 (3) crpc) and to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28-12-2024 and to register the crime against the Respondent No.6 to 9, and take the necessary action against them, who threatened the Petitioner and forcibry removed his paint shirt and insurted him in front of the their team and abused the petitioner in firthy ranguage and brackmaired and threatened to kir the petitioner if he inform the same to anybody, pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI RApOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 TO g: _ W.P.NO: 736s OF 2025 Between: Naga Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Aged about 42 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Plot No.7l , Vishwashreya Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad. l AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home ...PETITIONER Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District

5. The Station House Officer, Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

6. T.Bal Reddy, S/o. T.Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 48 Years, Occ. Business, R!/o. H.No.4-'12-1 36/2, Bhagyalatha Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga ReddY District ...RESP.NDENT. Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in non- following the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. nor 174 of B.N.S.S. and non-initiating to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 1 1.02.2025 non-initiating to register the F.l.R. against the Respondent No.6 who hatched a plan to extract the money from the Petitioner and stated sweet words and sold the land to an extent of 4c.3.24 Gts in Survey Nos.43, 74 and 75 which is situated at Surmaiguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and collected Rs.20.00 lakhs and entered into the Agreement of Sale and non-initiating to register the land on the name of Petitioner and cheated the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona I and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. or Section '1 74 of B.N.S.S. Act basing on representation of the Petitioner dated 11-02.2025 and take the necessary action against the Respondent No.6 by registering the F.l.R. who hatched a plan to extract the money from the Petitioner and sold the land to an extent of 4c.3.24 Gts in Survey Nos.43, 74 and 75 which is situated at Surmaiguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and obtained Rs.20.00 Lakhs as advance from the Petitioner. lA 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 direct the Respondent No 3 to follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code Section 15a (3) of Cr.P.C. or Section 174 of B.N.S.S. Act basing on representation of the Petitioner dated 11.02.2025 and take the necessary action against the Respondent No.6 by registering the F.l.R. who hatched a plan to extract the money from the Petitioner and sold the land to an extent o'f Ac.3.24 Gts in Survey Nos.43, 74 and 75 which is situated at Surmaiguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and obtained Rs.20.00 Lakhs as advance from the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE T' VINOD KUMAR w.P. Nos.6 373 and 7365 of2 o25 coMMON ORD ER: is that ons of The grievance of the petitioners in these Writ Petluons are not following the provisi the respondents-authorities Section 15a(3) of the Cr'P'C'' and Sections 17 3(41 aod 174 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS) by initiating action to register FIR against the unofficial respondents' basing on the complaint made by the petitioners' which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary' of the 2 he consent of the Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned for the official Government Pleader for Home appearlng respondents in both the Writ Petitions and with t parties, the writ learned counsel appearing for the respective petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage ' 3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved in the Writ Petitions and the manner of disposal' this Court is of the view that notice to unofhcial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the Present Writ Petitions' 4 Learned counsel appeartng Pieader for on behalf o[ Petitione rs and [{ome aPPeartng for official resPondents submit that the rssue involved in these Writ Pel itions learned Governrnent \ is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No,7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 1O.O3.2O25, whereby this Court held that both Cr.P.C. and BNSS being complete Code in itself, the petitioners therein are required to workout their remedies thereunder, and for the said reason a writ petition is not maintainable, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present C SE.

5. Having regard to the above submission, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, uide W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, these Writ Petitions are also disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Registrv is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 1O.03.2O25, to this order. 7 . Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand cl_o:gd. \ I l I SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSIq{AryT REGISTRAR / \ \. l'. I L#fiN oFF,cER to , The Principal Secretary' Home Department' Secretariat' Secretariat Buildings' //rRUE CoPY// Hvderabad, State of Telangana' Commissionerate ' Commissionerate-

2. ifr ;"d;t,;, dL n er." t' oiloli"-"' Tulu ns' nu state.' Hvd e rabad' 5. iii; C;.ti issioner oiFolile, nyaeraulao Commissionerate' 4. The Assistant commis#'iJi oiFoiict' S R Nagar' Hvderabad 5. fiJ 561ffi iouie omcer, S.R. Nagar Police Station' Hyderabad 6. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda' Rachakonda Commissionerate' -' Telangana State' Hyderabad' 7 The Assistant "orrliil"n?i ' com"miilionerate, Ranga Reddy District 8. id Si;-til uo,." o?iEe', Meeipet Police station' Rachakonda - Commisiionerate. Ranga Reddy District' e. #;'CCi; Siii nepot-U eHnsi<,qn' Adv-ocate I9PUC]. - io. ii,iJ ccsio e p ron noH/,lE, High court for the state of Telangana' at of potice, Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda HYderabad. [OUT] . Two CD CoPies (Along with a copy of the order passed in W'P'Nos'7159 ot 2025 & batch) 1 '1 d PSK I I \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 110312025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.6373 AND 7365 of 2025 r$E STA, € 2 4 r,Afl 2[25 Y + o o L DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS j ,.)Es. -

1.1 > / THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7159 7176 7205 7214 and 7329 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in a.ll the writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard leamed Counsel for the petitioners and the leamed Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents and qrith the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. I

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unollicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in

4. brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section i5a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section L74 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoflicial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 2

5. Per contra,leamed Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for ofiicial respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this 'Court in the case of Govind Roju Sami Vs The Sitatc of Telangana and, otherst; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under tlre Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ot BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting. the alternate remedies is contra5r to the dicta laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs Stqte oJ Uttar Prad,eshz.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the record. 7 . In similar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.24495 of 2019, dt.2l.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.S189 and 1269I of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2O22 and W.p.No.38397 of 2O19, having regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subrannania,m and Ors. Vs. S. Janakl and. Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ' zotg 1+1 N-D tta ' 2oo8 (2) scc 409 I (2020) 16 scc 72s 3 of Sarciri lrcsu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wit of Mand.amus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint liled indicates commission of an offence. This Court, in W.P.No.8l89 and 12691 of 2O2O, dr-31.O1.2024,

8. having regard to the provisions of the Cr-P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House Officer not registering the crime basing on the complaint made, the complainant has to avail the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police (for short 'SPJ, and in the event of the authorities, be it the SHO or the SP, refusing to receive the comptaint by registering a FIR and undertaking investigation, the complainant has the further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facie satisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the officer-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation end submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safety measures to ensure registration of a complajnt, even if the SHO fails to register the FIR. g. In the facts of ttte present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not show to this Court of they availing/exhausting the said remedies. 4

10. In view ofthe above, and having regard to the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no direction to the respondents-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners, respectivelyy can be issued. However, in the event ofthe petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of t].e respondents-authorities in not registering their complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private complaint before the concerned Criminal Court.

11. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

12. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. T. VINOD KUMAR, J loth March, 2025 gr4