High Court · 2025

AND 1. The State of Telangana, Reii. Uy its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, - Secretairat Buildings,Secretariat. Hyderabad 2- The Commiessionerate.of Police, R'achakonda. 3. The Station House Offiier, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Balaji Nagar, 4 lmt Sumalatha, W/o Sri. Pramod,Occ. Government Teacher working at _ Karimnagar District, Karimnagar, R:/o. Karininagar. 5. Sri. Pramod, Occ. Working in APSRTC, Karimn-agar Depot, KArimnagar, R/o. Yapral, Hyderabad. Karimnagar. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitulon of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more pa(icularly one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not regislering the FIR and taking action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 1610212020 against 4th and Sth respondents and its hench men is illegal, violative of Article 21 of the constitution of lndia and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the FIR on the petitioner complaint dated 1610212020 and initiate action. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to register the FIR against respondents 4th and Sth made by HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.7427 of 2020 ,,/ /, \; ..t\- l}g sEP 216 _;l "i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L \etL - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7L59,7176, 7205. 72L+, all.d.7329 of 2O25 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

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

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficia-l respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Wnt Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authonties arc not following the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section L74 of Ll:.e Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS] by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofhcia,l respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highty illegal and arbitrary- 2

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Ho;ne appearing for official respondents would submit that for non - reg:istration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the junsdiction of this Court under A.rtrcle 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the dccision of this Court in the case of Gouind Rcju Samt Vs The State of Telangana and othersl; that in the event of the respondent [jHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provrded under the Codc. of Crimina-l Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to s:ek redressal of therr grir:vance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contriry to the dicta laid down b]. the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu 7s State oJ tlttar Pradeshz.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and pemsed the record 7- In similar- circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.2a49S of 2019, dt.21.O4.2020, W.p.No.8189 and 12691 oi 2020, dt.31.01.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 and W.P.No.38397 o: :2019, having regard to the Iaw laid down by a three-judge bench of lhe Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam and Ors. Vs. S. Janaki and. Ors3, whereLn the dicta laid down by the Hontrle Supreme Court in the case ' 20l9 (4) ALD l7+ I2008 (2) sc(- 109 '(2010) t6 s( c 72ti of Sakiri Tcsu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wit of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FIR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.S189 and 12691 ot 2O2O, dt.3l O1.2024' 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 compta-rnt made, the complainant has to avail the remedy of approachrng 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 complaint by registering a FIR and undertaking investigation, the complainalt has the further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by filing a private complarnt; and that on the Court being pima facie satislied 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 and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safety measures to ensure registration of a complaint, even if the SHO fails to register the =-FIR g. ln the facts of the 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, ald having regard to the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of the r'iew that no direction to the respondents-authorities to register al FIR on the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be issued- However, in the event ofthe petitioners being erggrieved by the inaction of the respondents-authorities .in not r€,gistering complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to aval 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-

72. As a sequel miscellaleous petitions pending if :rny shall stand closed. No order as lo costs. T. VINOD KUMAR, J loth March, 2O25