Koshika_ Raju v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Articre 226 of the congtitution of India 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 mpre particularry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the aQtion of the respondent No.3 in non- considering the representation-cum-compraint of the petitioner dared 16.02.202s, non-following the provisions of U/sec.i54(3) of cr.p.0 (U/sec..r76 of BNSS) and non-initiating to register the FIR against the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to g, who are hatched a pran to extract the money from the petitioner, they demanded to sefi the land from the petitioner, created panic situation in front of the petitioner,s house, threatening blackmailing and trying to kill the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutrona I and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles. 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to consider the representation-cum-complaint of the petitioner dated 16 02 2025, to follow the provisions of U/sec.154(3) of cr.P.0 (U/Sec.176 of BNSS) and to register the FIR against the unofficial respondent Nos.6.to 9, who are hatched a plan to extract the money from the petitioner' they demanded to sell the land from the petitionqr' created panic situation in front of lhe petitioner,s house, threatening, blackmailing and trying to kill 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 direcl the respondent No.3 to consider the representation-cum-complaint of the petitioner dated 16 02 2025, to follow the provisions of U/Sec 154(3) of Cr.P 0 (U/Sec 170 of BNSS) and to register the FIR against the unofficial respondent Nos'6 to 9' who are hatched a plan to extract the money from the petitioner' tley demanded to sell the land from the petitioner, created panic situation 1r1 fronl of the petitioner's house, threatening, blackmailing and trying to kill the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition Counset for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsei for the Respondent Nos'1 TO 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos'6 TO 9: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 7347 of 2O2S ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ petition is 'that the respondents-authorities are not folowing the provisions of Section l5a(3) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 174 of BNSS (Wrongly mentioned as Section 126) by iniriating 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 illcgal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Flome appearing for the official respondents and with the consent oI 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 ljs involved in the Writ Petition and the manne r oi d isposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofhcial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner fairly submits that the issue involved in the Writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of this court in wp.No.7r59 of 2o2s & batch, , I 2 f dt. 10.03.2025. and the said common ordcr would apply in all force to the facts of the present case. The same is not disputed by the Government Pleader for Home appcaring for the official respondents.

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as werc s[ated in the aforesaid Wrir Petition s, uide W.P.Nos 7159 of 2025 & batch' dt. 10.03.2025. and in terms thereof, the present Writ Petition is also disposed ol. 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. 1O.03.2025, to this order'

7. Consequcntly, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petttions shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR ASSI ON OFFICER Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. Com missionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda 6. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate TOPUCI 7 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 8 Tyro CD Copies Hyderabad IOUT] (Nlong with a copy of the order passed in WP.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt: 10.03.2025) To I'SK t -. ,v 1-rrl.. -, - .f-:.*.t I \, r..i': H ": .rfi HIGH COURT DATED:1 210312025 ORDER WP.No.7347 ot 2025 il i-: 5i L4 I e o^ ( zM}IAR )I 2E ) ."1* De' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (Dq" W TI{E TION'BLE SRI .'(,STICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos.7 159 7176 7205 7214 and,7329 of 2o25 COM}ION 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 olficial 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 lb 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 154(3) of the cr.p.c., and section rz4 of t..,e Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unolficial respondents, respectively, basing on the compraints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitraqr. 2

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for olIicial respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 ol-the Constrhrtion of India in view of thr: decision of this Court in the r:ase of Govind Rafu Sarmi Vs ThE Stdte of Telangana and. otherst; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of (lrirnina-l Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance; arrd that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the a.lternate remedies is contrarJr to tne dic,ta laid down by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasz 7s Stotc of Uttar Pradpsh2.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the record.

7. In similar circumstarces, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2019, dt.27.O4.2O2O, w.P.No.8189 e:rd 12691 of 2O2O, dt.3 1.01.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2O22 and W.P.No.38397 of 2019, having regard to the Iaw iaid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subram.o.niam and Ors. ys. S. Janoki and Ors3, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case | 2ot9 (41 ND t'74 ' zoo8 1zy scc: los I lzou o1 ro scc zzs 3 of Sarctri Vasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mand.amus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint frled indicates commission of al offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.S189 ar.d 72697 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House OIIicer not registering the crime basing on the complaint made, the complainant has to avail the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police (for short 'SP'), ald 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 complainant has the further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facie saUsfied 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 ofncer-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 compiaint, even if the SHO fails to register the FIR.

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. 4 _.r'i.' ^

10. In vierv of the above, and having regard to the position oflaw 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 c:omplaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be issued- However, in the event ofthe petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents-authorities in not registering their complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of hling a private complaint before the concerned Crimina_l 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 ordcr as to costs. 1oir,March,2O:15 T. VII{OD KI'MAR, J