Mohammed lm1d. Ahmed v. The State of.Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI 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, declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in taking action against the unofficial respondent and her entire family members pursuant to the written complaint dl. 7-2-2025 followed by personal visits, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to act upon the complaint dt.7-2-2025 and take appropriate action against the 4th respondent and her family members as per Law. I I NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1sl 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. 2 and 3 herein to forthwith register the FIR against the unofficial respondent and her family members pursuant to the complaint dt. 7 -2-2025, pending disposat of the main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.NAYEEMUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.N 0.7323 of 2025 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities are not initiating action basing on the complaint made by the petitioner to register FIR against the unofficial respondent(s), which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of /s involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unolficial respondent(s) is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Governmept Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, whereby this Court held that both Cr.P.C. and BNSS being complete Code I 2 w ( in itself, the petitioners therein are required to work out their remedies thereunder, and for the said reason a writ petition is not maintainabre, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

5. Having regard to the above submission, for reasons arike as were stated in the aforesaid writ petitions, videw.p.Nos.715g of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, this writ petition is arso disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, to this order. 7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/.K.AMMAJI DEPLITY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// '.sEcrloN oFFlcER 'o'',. tn" Principal Secretary' Home Department Secretariat' Hyderabad' State of Telangana. . The Superintendent of Police' Mahabubnagar District' Mahabubnagar' . The Station House Officer' ll Town Police Station' Mahabubnagar District' . One CC to SRI M NAYEEMUDDIN' Advocate [OPUC] . Two CCs to GP FOR HOME' High Court for the State of Telangana at 4 2 E .1 Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies (Along with the copy of order dated 10'03'2025' in W'P'Nos'7159 of 2O25 & batch) BSR LS TI,- \ HIGH COURT DATED:01104t2025 ORDER WP.No.7323 ol 2O2S 1+lE sl4 \. 2O APR M .l t) PATCH;o -,* DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I q ,@ Yt- i+ute , j THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7159 ,7176,7205. 72L4, and,7329 of 2O2S c MMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ peririons is one and the same; these v/rit petitions are being disposed of by this common order-

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Covernment Pleader for Home appearing for the officiai respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, rthese v/rit 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 unofficial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofficial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, rvhich action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. I 2 I

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondentb 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 Goolad. Raju Sami Vs The State of Telangana and. othersl' that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to I register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provide<l under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contrary to the dicta laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Sckiri Vcsu Vs State of tlttar Pradeshz.

6. I have takerl note of the respective contentions urged and perused the record. 7 . In simiiar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.24495 oi 20 lg, dt.2r.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 1269t of 2O2O, dt.3t.Ot.2O24, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 and W.p.No.38397 of 2019, having regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Strpreme Court in M. ornd Ors. I/s. S. Jannki and. Ors3, -subramanlam wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case | 2ot9 6y eto nt 2 zooa (z) scc qos t lzozol r6 scc tzs 3 of Sakirl Vasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wnt of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.818 9 and 1269 t of 2O2O, dt.3t .Ot .2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.p.C., had held that in the event of the Statiol House Officer not registering the crime basing on the complaint malde, the complainant has to avail the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police (for short ,Sp'), and in the event of the authorities, be it the SHO or the Sp, refusing to re'ceive the complaint by rbgistering a FIR and undertaking investigation, the complainant has the further remedy of approaching the concerned Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facre s'atisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing i commission of a cogoizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred i:nder the Cr.p.C./BNSS can direct the officer_in- I charge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The abovel stated procedures envisage safety measures to ensure registration of a complaint, even if the SHO fails to register the FI R.

9. In the facts of the present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not show to this Court of they availing/exhausting the said remedies. .t 4

10. In view of the 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 I basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be I issued. However, ih the event ofthe petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of the iespondents-authorities in not registering their complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private com'plaint before the concerned Criminal Court. I

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

12. As a sequel rniscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. T. VINOD KUMAR, J lOth March, 2O25.