High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No's. 2 and 3 in not registering a F.r.R and not taking any action against the respondent No's. 4 to 'r0, basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner dated 29- 11-2024 and 03-12-2024, is nothing but arbitrary, iilegar, nuil and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Consequently direct the respondent No's. 2 and 3 to register a F.l.R. and take necessary action against the respondent No's. 4 to 10, basing on the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 29-11-2024 end 03-12-2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondenl Nos. 2 and 3 to register a F.l.R. and take necessary action against the respondent No's 4 to 10, basing on the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 29-1 1-2024 and 03-12-2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 10: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 7847 of 2025 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities basing on the cbmplaints made by the petitioner are noL initiating action by regis[ering the FIR against the unofficial respondents, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel lor the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respectivc partics, the r,r,rit petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of Us involved in the Writ Petition and the manner o[ clisposal, 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 l-lome appearing for the oflicial respondents submit that the issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 2 & batch, dr.10.03.2025, and the said common c,rder would appl1, in all forc e t.o r hc l:rcts of the present case .

5. Ilecording the same, for reasons alike as were statcd in the aforesaid \\rr t Petirions, uide W.P.Nos.7159. ol 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.20.1S, :rnd ir-r terms Lhereof, the prese r,t Writ petiLion is also dis,posr'1 of. No order as to costs.

6. Regis,r, is dirr:cted to append a copy of tl-rr: order passed in W.P.Nos.715t) of 2O25 & batch, dt. I O.03.2O25, to this order.

7. Conscrluently, miscellancous petitions, if zrny, pending shall st and <:loserl //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADMANABHA /EDDY DEPUTY RFgSTRAR \J SECTION OFFTCER To State of Telangiana. Mandal, Khamnram District. 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad z. ine-Commiisi6ner of Police, Khammam D-istrict, Khammam' e. i# 5ilui.^ H",i." offi.;;, r\4Gig;noi porice Station, Mudigonda Proper and 4. o;; Ci to Snt x.veruuMADHAV, Advocate [oP^UC] 6. i;; cc.io-ci ron nove, High court for the state of relangana' at 6. Two CD CoPies " (Ai;"'g *itliiiopy of the order dated 10'03'2025 in WP'Nos'7l59 of 2025 Hyderabad. [OtJT] & batch) PSK BS I .? { (- L' HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 ORDER WP.No.7847 of 2025 rP y\6 S1--- ( 5 o o \ 0 4 t;,, 2[?5 i Dpst ^ =;rz DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS QFq," %- :-. THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR trI.P.Nos.7159 7176 72o5 7214 ag.d 7329 of 2o25 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 oflicia-l respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel appealing for the respective parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing arld disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the ma;rner of disposal, this Court is of the vrew that notice to uno{Iicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessa-ry 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 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofficial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. ) s 2

5. Per cor,.tta,learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents would submit that for non - reglstratlon of FIR, the petitioners czrlnot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Arttcle 226 ol the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court in the t ase of Gouind Raju Sarrrl Vs The State of Telangana and..otherst; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have a-lternate remedies provided under the Code of Cnminal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal of their gri€vanco; and that invoking the jurisdiction of lhis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate ri:mr dies is contrary to lhe dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Corrrt in the case of Saktri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh2.

6. I have al<en note of the respective contentions urged and perused the rer:ord.

7. In similrLr circumstarces, this Court in W.P.No 24495 of 2019, dt.27.O4.2O2O \4'.P.No.8189 and 12697 of 2O2O, dt.31.01.2024, ard also in W.P.NI'.37446 o{ 2022 and W.P.No.38397 of 2O19, having regard to the iau, laid down by a three-judge bench ol the Supreme Court in M. Subramtniann crnd Ors. Vs, S. Joncrkl and Orst, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cotrrt in the case ' 2019 (4)ALD 174 '?2oo8 (2) scc 409 '(2020) 16 scc 728 ,.4:} 3 of Sckiri Tcsu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wit of Mandamts cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of a;t olfence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and, 72691 of 2O2O, dt.37.O1.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House O{ficer not registering the crime basing on the complaint made, the complainant h6s to avaii 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, refi.Ising 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 complaint; and that on the Court being prima facie satisf-red 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 offtcer-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.

9. In the facts of the present cases, admittediy, the petitioners herein did not show to tlis Court of they avaiiing/exhausting the said remedies. 4

10. In vierv r>f thc above, artd having regard to the position oflaw as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of the vrew that no direction to the respondents-authorities to register al FIR on the basis ol'the r ornplaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be issued. Howcvr:r, in the event ofthe petitioners being aggrieved by the inacilon of the respondents-authorities in not registering their complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a pnvatr complaint before the concemed Criminal Court.

11. Subject ro the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. l{o order as to costs.

12. As a se<1uel miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No ordi.r as to costs 10t! March, 202'; T. VINOD KUMAR, J