High Court · 2025

TheAssistantCommissionerofPolice,RajendraNagarDivision'Rajendra Nagar, Cyberabad The Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station' Cyberabad Commissionerate, HYderabad- Ashok Kumar, S/o Not known, Aged 50 years, Occ Presidert,!Anav31t^|ag3J a-oze6'-Street'No.9, Bhavanr colonv near sM c6l;;;i."R7": XJ"ii'jJ,sri!:*ritii"si.n, rr,rr"bi1l'ainiragrdi Jinansir, Kismithpur Road' Hyderabad -H.no .".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 p|easedtoissueaWritordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritof Mandamus,declaringtheactionoftherespondentNo.5innotregisteringtheFIR againsttheunofficialrespondentNo.6thoughthecognizableoffencecommitted bytheminpursuanttothepetitionerscomplaintsdated03-03-2025asillegal' arbitrary, u ncon Stitutiona l, violative of Princip|es of natural justice and contrary'to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari V/s Govt. U P and :.-.-_,. / / consequently direct the official Respondents to register the FIR duly effecting the arrest of the accused and conduct investigation by following due procedure of law. 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 direct the respondenls No. 5 to forthwith to register the FIR against the unofficial respondent No.6 in pursuant to the petitioners' complaint daled 0310312025, addressed to the Respondents No. 4 & 5, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.MADHU SUDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 7849 of 2025 ORDER The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is ''complaint made by that the respondents-authorities basing on the the petitioner are not initiating action by registering the PIR against the unofficial respondent, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pieader for Home appearing for the official respondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, l-he writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearirrg on behalf ol petitioner and learned Government Pleade r for Home appearing for the official 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 I I I I \ To, ) & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and the said common order wr>uld apply in all force to the lacts of the present case

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were staled in the aforesaid Writ f)etitions, uide W.p.Nos.7159 of 2O2S & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, the present Writ pctition is also ciisposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Registrl, is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2O2S & batch, dt. 1O.03.2025, to rhis order. 7. Consequently, miscellaleous p€titions, stand closed if any, pending shall //TRUE COPY' SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD IJTY REGISTRAR D St,CrtON OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Hyderabad' State of Telangana.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad' 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajendra Nagar Zone, at Ralendra Nagar. CYberabad. 4 The Assistant commissioner of Police, Rajendra Nagar Division, Ralendra Nagar. CYberabad

5. The Station House officer, Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad Comm issio ne rate, HYderabad.

6. One CC to SRI B.MADHU SUDHAN RAO, Advocate IOPUC] T.TwoCCstoGPFORHOME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 10.03.2025, in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch) BSR BS *P TI HIGH COURT DATED:17103t2025 ORDER WP.No.7849 of 2025 HE STA 14: f q )3 27 ilAn 20[ '( z C t DESFii I c 1) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS o W I I // I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7159. 7176.7205.72L4. and,7329 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is one ald 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 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 regard to the nature of lrs involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessalr for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessal/ details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 ot the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS') by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofficial respondents, respectively, basing on the compiaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. I 2

5. Per contra, learned Government pleader for Home appearing for \ oflicial respondents would submit that for non _ registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court in the r:ase of Govind. Raju Sarnr'ri Vs The.State oJ Telangana and othersr; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have altemate remedies provided under the Code of Crimina-l procedure, 1973 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 alternate remedies is contrary to tine dicta laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Sckiri Vastt Vs State of tlttar Prad*h2.

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

7. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.2449S of 2019, dt.21.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8t89 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.01.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2O22 and W.p.No.3839Z of 2079, having regard to thr: Iaw laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subramanic:m and. Ors. Irs. S. Janalci a.nd. Ors3, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case ' zos 1a1 l.to nl 'zoo8 (z) scc +0, '(2020) r6 scc 718 3 of Sakiri Tasa's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wit of Mandamus carnot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint hled indicates commission of al offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 ar.d 12691 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol-2O24, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House Officer 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 complaint; and that on the Court being prima facie satished of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cogtrizable 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.

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 I I

10. In view ofthe above, and having regard to the position of law 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 complaints todged 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 Criminal Court.

11. Subject to the above observations, the Writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

72. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand i closed. No order as to costs. loh March, 2O25. T. VINOD KUMAR, J