High Court · 2025

8. Kampati Nagamani, Wo. Srinu, Aged about 38 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Hussainabad Village, Mothe [Mandal, Suryapet District.

9. Kampati Venu, S/o. Srinu, Aged about 25 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. Hussainabad Village, Mothe Mandal, Suryapet District. l0.Kampati Chandu, S/o- Srinu, Aged about 23 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Rl/o. HussainabadVillage,MotheMandal,SuryapetDistrict. ...RESpONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f 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-considering the representation of the Petitioner dated

12.02.2025 and non-initiating to register the F.l.R. against the Respondent No.7 to 10 and non-initiating to take necessary action against the Respondent No.7 who stated the sweet words on the name of love and marriage and cheated and committed rape on the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation I / 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 174 of B.N S.S. Act basing on the representation of the Petitioner dated 12.02.2025 and take the necessary action against the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 by registering the F.l.R. who are harassing the Petitioner physically and mentally and abusing the Petitioner and her daughter in filthy language' IA 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 l54 (3) of Cr P.C. or Section l T4 of B N S S' Act basing on the representation of the Petitioner dated 12.02.2025 and take the necessary action against the Respbndent Nos. 7 to 10 by registering the F.l.R. who are harassing the Petitioner physicatly and mentally and abusing the Petitioner and her daughter in filthy language pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: GP FOR HOME Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO 10: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 7Sa2 of 2o25 ORDER The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. or Section 174 of BNSS' by initiating action to register FIR against the unoflicial 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 and the learned Governme nt Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel. appearing for the respective parlies, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to lis involved in the Writ Petition arrd the ma.nner 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 fairly submits that the issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and the said common order would apply in a1l force I I , ! 2 to the facts of the present case. The same is not disputed by the Government Pleader for Home appearing for the oflicial respondents.

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Petition s, uide W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch' dt.10.03.2o25, and in terms thereof, the present Writ Petition is also 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. 1O.03'2O25, to this order'

7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. /iTRUE COPY' SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ,/ AsS|SIANT REGISTRAR ./ --: SECTION OFFICER \ To Hyderabad, State of Telanqana.

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, 2. The Director General of Po'iice, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Suryapet, Suryapet District. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodada Division, Suryapet District. 5. The Circle Inspector of Police, Munagala Circle, Suryapet District. 6. The Station House Officer, IVIothe Police Station, Suryapet District. 7. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate IOPUCI 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at (Along with a copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos.7159 ol 2025 & batch) Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies PSK. GJP \, HIGH COURT DATED:1210312025 \ ORDER WP.No.7582 of 2025 r-) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 18 ^{,(' t9W 1HE S t4 /., </'s (L,4NAB?W \..- 6 f L) .]l .2 ,1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos.7159 7176 7205 72L+ and,7329 of 2025 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 leamed Counsel for the petitioners and the learned and with Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents -the consent of the learned counsel appearing for ttre respective parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing ald $it 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 necessar5r for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions. 4- Shorn of unnecessaqr details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section f5a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 774 of t}:e Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS') by initiating action to register FIRs against the unolficial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. \ 2 , \ Per contra,learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for 5. offrcial respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR' the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Arllcle 226 ol the Constihltion of India in view of the rlecision of this CourtinthecaseofGo:urnd.RajusannivsTheSta.teorTeloing(In.a cr'td othe..sti that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Crimina-l Procedure, !973 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 alternateremediesiScontrarytot]nedictalaiddownbytheHon'ble in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttat Supreme Court Pro,desh2. 6- I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the record. In similar circumstances, this Court in W'P No 24495 of 2O19' 7. dt.2l.O4.2O2O, W-P.No.S189 arrd' 12691 of 2O2O ' dt'31'01 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. Subrannornlolm and Ors' Vs' S' Janaki and Orss ' wherein the dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case I ' zol9 (4) ALD l?4 ' 2oo8 (2) scc {09 r (2020) 16 scc 728 / 3 of Sakir. Vcsu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categoncally held that a Writ of Manda,nus carnot 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.8189 arrd t26g1 of 2O2O, dt.3t.Ot.2024, having regard to the provisions of the cr.p.c., had held that in the event of the Station House Oflicer 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 complaint by registering a FIR and undertaking investigation, the complainalt has the further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facre 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 of{icer-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage .."",r."" to ensure registration of a complaint, even if the SHO fails to register the FIR. ""Gt],

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

10. ln view ofthe above, and having regard to the position of law as enunciated bv 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, 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 filing a private complaint before the concemed Crimina-l Court' 11 Subiect 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 KIIMAR, J 10th March, 2O25 9ra