High Court · 2025

11.Mr. Mohammed Rawoof_ur-Rehman, S/o.Not Known to the petitioner. Aoed ffi htrt""B!'a,?,T;i8lE,gyi,i;$,i"il:ff rffi ::;!s[iledl,U# ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of . rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or orders, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the officiar Respondents herein more particurarry Respondent No.5 herein in not registering FIR against the respondents 6 to 10 in I ''rrrrrrn"" of the ccrnPlaint lodge ResPondent No 2 anJ disPosing th enquiry report vide l\c KIr/MMPS- gross violation r:f I -inciPles of Respondents No in pursuance c'f d by the petitioner dated 3Oi'2t2O24 lo lhe e complaint of the petition(:r on the pretext of KMM/31 1224tO0942' a:; illegal' 'lrbitrary and in natural .iustice and c': nse rq ue r-rtly direct the 21c 5 herein to register F'l R against the FesPondents 6 to 10 '.h: :omplaint of petitioner daled 3O112r2O24 in the interest of justice IA NO 1U^F 202a Petition urd'?-Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsiances stated in the affidavit fi e(r ir support of the petition' the High Court ma'" be pleased to detect the Res cortrlents No' 2 to 5 herein to register F l R' against the Respondents 'i 1l 1O in pursuance of the complaint of petitiorrer daled 3011212O24 in the interest of just ce pending disposal of the above writ petitiort Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' M' V' VENU Counsel for the Re s;pondent Nos' 1to5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for thr: l?espondent Nos' 6to11:- The Court marde ttter following: ORDER \ THE I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.7 678 of 20.25 ORDE R: The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondents-authorities are not initiating action by registering the 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 and the learne,l Government pleader for Home appearing for the ofhcial 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 iis 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 a judication 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.715 9 of 2O2S & batch, dt. 1O.O3.202S, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case. The same is not disputed bv the ( ( GovernmelltFl,'.aderforHomeappearing{ortheoff.lcial responden is

5. Recorrlirrtl the same, for reasons alike as were stattrd in the aforesaid \[ r; ' Pelition s, uide W'P Nos'7159 of 2O)5 i\ batch' dt. 10.03.20,.5, ilnd in terms thereof, the present W .it t,etition is also clispos< I cf No order as to costs'

6. Regis.q-is directed to append a' copy of the orfer rassed in W.P.Nos.7'i i() ':l 2025 & batch, dt'1O 03'2025' to this ord:r' 7 . Q615'''q; e ntl], miscellaneous petitions' if a n1" pen'iing sha1l stand close rl sDi.T. JAYASREE / pEPUT''/ REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// / '.t sECTloN OFFIcER Amhedkirr Secretariat, To, artment, Dr.'.B Khamman' [)i strict he Princirral Secretary, Home DeP T.S.,HYcler'abi l(l

1.7 2. The Cornn'tis s ioner of Police, Commissionarate, Srinrvaszt Nagar' Khammam' 3. The Assis tarll ,lommissioner of Police, O/o. ACP, Khamrrar-n Town' Beside S.P. Road, Khammam City and Distrid 4. The Static'n l- ouse Officer, P .S. Women, Khammam, Khilmrr am District 5. The Statictn FLouse Officer, P .S. I Town' Khammam, kha rrma m District 6. One CC; tt'r SFI.I, M. V, VENU, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs :o :;P FOR HOME , High Court for the State o1 Telrangana at TDP Oflic:r t Hyderaba'J I 3rUTl (A:.J,Iflf:'"t;;?i 'o" the order in wP Nos' 715e or 2025 & batr::h it. to.og.zozs) BM GJP ' A:;i \ ,h.e \ HIGH COIJIRI' DATED:13103'12025 \ ORDER WP.No.767'8i of 2025 IE S ll,r 6 /.1:r:7 i' Z 5 JUN 2U5 /t o,) a L,, "i.r\- tc\lEC (. ,o DISPOSIT{G OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C;)STS (s* ;il,':; \ '"') \ THE HON'BLE SRI WSTIC E T. VINOD KUMAR VI.P.Nos.715 9 7176 7205 72t4 ard 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 Government Pleader for Home appearing for the ofhcial 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 lls involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is ofthe 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 ihat the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section l5a(3) of the Cr.p.C., and Section t74 of |ne Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short .BNSSJ by initiating actiorr to register FIRs against the unofhcial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrarv. 2 I Pe I ,l(rnrra, learned Government Pleader for Home :ppet'ring for 5. ofltcial rt'sr,r I,dcnls would submit that for non - registr ltion of FIR' the petilrotr,:rs cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this lourl under Articlc 2 .l() , )l tire Constitution of lndia in view of the de risio I of this Courl il] tl-( rase of Gootnd Raju Somi Vs The state o'f Te''angqna undotrLe|stthatintheeventoftherespondentSl{()reflrsingto regist( I rll. the petitioners have alternate remedies prrvidcd under the Circl: ol Criminal Procedure' 1973 or BNSS to seel redressal of .t :c. and that invoking the jurisdiction oi this CotLrt under their llrrrrr';r Articlc .):la- of the Constrtutlon of India without exhausrting the alternal o tr nedies is contrary to tbe dicto laid dorvn by thc Hon'ble in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs st'ate 't Uttar Supr( ltl,l ( (,urt Prode-sh2

6. I lra": taken note of the respective conterltion; uriled and perusierl lll: record I s t:rilar circumstances, this Court in W P No 2449l' ol 2019' 7. dt.21.(r'1 :lr)20, W.P.No 8189 and l26gt of 2020' r1t 31'O L '-:"O24 ' arrd also ir' '"t' I'.No.37446 of 2022 and W P No 38397 of 2019' having regar-d to .lre law laid down by a three-judge bench o[ th€ Supreme Coutt irL Df. SubroLrrtcLrtiolrr. cLnd Ors' Vs' S' 'Ianctki ttnd Ors3' whe;.cl lt 1 } ( dicta laid down by the Hon,ble Suprerne Cc ult i n the CaSe I Z0lc t,t | ,1t I i ;l ,2o(rr (trs(( -o! '(202 )) -, ia a r:lt 3 of scftiri ya.su b 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.

8. This Court, in W.p.No 8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.p.C., had held that in the event of the Station House OIficer 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 complainant has the further remedy of approaching the concerned Magistrate court by filing a private compraint; and that on the court being pima facie satished 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 erivisage safety measures to ensure registration of a complaint, even if the SHO fails to register the FIR,

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

10. 1; fi; r' oi the above' and having regard to the posiljon ( f law as enunc'al,-'cl L-y the Apex Court' this Court is of l.he view that no directicr 'r lhc respondents authorities to register an FIF on the basis :l -}.1: rlomplaints lodged by the petitioners, reSpeClivel]', Can be issuerL. lo'vl\rer, in the event ofthe Petitioners being aglriev':d by the inactltr o the respondents-authorities in not reg steriag their I is always open for the petitioners to zivail the I emedy of comp ilrr11 j filing a prlr ate complaint before the concerned Criminal lourt 11 siull ect to the above obsewations' the Writ Peti -ions are dispc sc 1 'l . No order as to costs

12. rrs I sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any stralL stand closed N ) ( rdcr as to costs T. V]NOD KUMAR, J 1Od Nl, rrr: I 2025