High Court · 2025

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 order (s) or direction (s) more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in declaring the inaction of the respondent no.6 in not considering the representation/complaint submitted by the petitioner dated 11- 02-2025 and not discharging their statutory duties for registration of FIR against the unofficial respondent No.7 and 8 pursuant to the petitioner cognizable criminal complaint, dated. 11-02-2025, and having received the cognizable criminal complaint by the official respondents and not yet registered the case and same as been illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and it's nothing but misuse of their official powers, and consequently direct the respondents herein, particularly respondent No.6, forthwith reqister the criminal case and arrest the culprit, i.e., unofficial respondent No. 7 and 8, pursuant to the petitioner cognizable criminal complaint, dated l l-02-2025 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition und.r 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 issue the directions to the respondents herein, particularly respondent No.6, forthwith register :he criminal case and arrest the cutprits, i.e., unofficial respondent. No.7 pursuant to the petitioner cognizab,e criminal complaint, dated. 'l 1-02-2025, pending disposal of the main writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMED ZAKI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to6: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7&g:- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR w.P. 7 2025 ORDER.: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ petition is that the respondents-authorities are not initiating action to register FIR against the unofficial respondents, basing on the complaint made by the petitioner, 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 perused the record.

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 unofficial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ petition

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government 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 in itself, the petitioners therein are required to work out their remedies thereunder, and for the said reason a writ petition is not maintainable, and f I 2 the said comrnon order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

5. Having regard to the above submission, for re;lsons alike as were stated in the aforesaid writ petitions, videw.p.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch. dt.10.03.2025 and in terms thereol this writ petition is arso disposed of. No order as to costs

6. Registr) is directed to append a copy of thr_. q16s, passed in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, to rhis o.cler. 7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// n SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDI A$SISTANT REGISTRAR '\."t'o* /\".\ | oFFtcER To, Road No. 12, IlYderabad. Secretariat' T'S 'Hyderabad . 1. The Principal Secretary, Home -Department, i. ii-i" oiiirtiS, cun"rri oi eori"e, sqt" of Telangana' Lakdikapul' Hvderabad. .. :. iii; 6;;;sslonei or potiie, citv com.ission"erate- Hyderabad, Banjara Hills +. iiJb"irtvt,ffiirrion", of police, South Zone, purani Haveli, Hyderabad. s. ihe nsiistint Sommissioner of Police, Mirchowk'.Hvderabad ' 6. The station House oricJr,Iil;;h"*k P'5; Hyoetioai' Hvderabad Dist' 7. o;;'ic 6 Snr uonnuuED zAKl, Advocate tolPUCI - i: i;; d6;i" -GP Hyderabad [OUT] 9. Two CD CoPies FOn noue ,High court for the state of Telangana at Telahoana State. BM LS (Alonq with a copy of the order passed in W P' No' 7159 of 2025 & batch' bt.to--os zos, to this:.;hall stand closed ) (h-- E 1 .'-T-:,,1 I \ 44 t*' f w HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 ORDER WP.No.7299 of 2025 1HE S oe( a) )(. t 1l np;l ffi (. i ,C' .iCi"' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {+- ) 4 2r- THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE T. VIilO D KUMAR trI.P.Itos. 7159,7776,7205. 7214. alod 7329 of 20.25 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 learned 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 regaJd to the nature of /rs involved and the manner of disposal, this court is of the view that notice to unoflicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessaq/ defails, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Cr.p.C., and Section lZ4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unollicial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as high.ly illegal and arbitrary. 2

5. Per contra, learned Govemment pleader for H,lme appearing for official respondents would submit that for non - K:gistration of FIR, the petitionr:rs cannot invoke the jurisdiction of :his Court under Article 226 r,f the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Govind R.tju Sa;ml Vs The S:tate of Tetangana and. others:'; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under tlre Code of Cnmina-l Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to sr:ek redressa.l of their grievarrr:e; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India w.ithout exhausting the alternate rerrredies is contrary to the dicta laid dow.e by the Hon,ble Supreme Co,rrt in the case of Sakiri Va.su Vs State of tlttar Prad,eshz.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the r,:cord-

7. In simila_r circumstances, this Court in W.p.Nc.24495 of 2019, dt.21.O4.2O2C, W.l).No.S189 and t269t of 2O2O, dt.i11.O1.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 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. Subramaniara- and. Ors. Vs. S. Jancki and Ors3, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case ' zots 1ty *o tt+ ']2008 (2) scc 409 ' (2020) 16 scc 728 3 of Scrkiri Vasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wit of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence. This Court, in W.P No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt'31'Ol'2o24' 8: having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House Offtcer not registering the crime basing on the complaint made, the complainalt 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 complaint by registering a FIR and undertaking investigation' the complainalt has the further remedy of approaching the concerned Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court beirrg prima facie satished of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cogrrizable 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. In the facts of the present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not show to this Court of they availing/exhausting the said remedies. a,j| 4

10. In vier ofthe above, and having regard to the position oflaw as enunciated by thc Apex Court, this Court is of tlrr: view that no direction to the respondents-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the c,;mplaints lodged by the petitioners, res:cctively, can be issued. However, in the event ofthe petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of rhe respondents-authorities in not registenng their complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to aveLil the remedy of filing a private complaint before the concemed Criminrrl Court.

11. Subject to the above observations, the Writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 12 As a sequel miscellareous petitions pending if lny shall stand closed. No ordr'r as to costs loth March, 2021; T. VINOD KT'MAR, J