Suthrala Ranjith v. The State of Telangana

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 police to register the FIR against the unofficial respondents No.6 and 7 pursuant to the complaint dt. 03-02-2025, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRAVAN KUMAR PURELLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 7913 OF 2025 Between: Kodamala Jasper Varun, S/o Kodamala lsrael, Age 28. No.1 05, B Block, Vision Cascade Greens Apahment, Satyam Enclave, Kompally - 5000'14. Occ. Business, Flat North NCL, Near ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Director General of Police, Telangana State at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, At Hyderabad City Police Commissionarate office Hyderabad District, Telangana State. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, At Saifabad, For Nampally Police Station The Station House Officer, Nampally Police Station At Nampally, Hyderabad District Telangana State. -Kenneth Vamshi,. S/o. K.lsrael R/o 265-0, Next to Diamond Building K.Joy Road No-l0, Jubiliee Hills, Hyderabad - Telanqana Land Marks - Near Karu-r Vysya Bank Opposite fruit shop, Back of Pink Mondo Pin. 500033 K.Sharon Rose Vivekini, W/o K.Joy Kenneth Vamshi R/o 265-0, Next to Diamond Building Road No-10, Jubiliee Hills, Hyderabad - Telangina Land .,j.lI Marks - Near Karur Vysya Bank Opposite fruit shop, Back of Pink Mondo Pin. 500033.

8. K.Yenuberi lsrael, S/o Late Y.John Prakasham R/o 265-0, Next to Diamond Building Road No-10, Jubiliee Hills, Hyderabad - Telangana Land Marks - .' Near Karur Vysya Bank Opposite fruit shop, Back of Pink Mondo Pin. 500033 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent Police in taking action against the unofficial Respondents No.6 to 8 pursuant to the written postal complaints dt. 0310212025 in spite of repeated visits, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent police to forthwith act upon the complaint dL.0310212025. 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 Respondent police to register the FIR against the unofficial respondents No.6 to 8 pursuant to the complaint dt. 03/02/2025, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRAVAN KUMAR PURELLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos.79lO and 7913 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER The grievance of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that the respondents-authoritrcs are not initiating actibn to register FIR against the unofficial respondents, basing on the complaint made by the petitiont:rs, u'hich action of the respondents it is contended as highiy illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government I'leadt-'r for Home appearing for the official respondents in both the Writ Petitions and with the consent of the learned counscl appearing for the respective partics, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having rcgard Lo t he nature of /is involved in these Writ Petitions and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unof[i<:ial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of 0 \ ( I the present Writ Petitions.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for ofhcial respondents submit that the issue involvecl in thest: Writ Petitions is squarely covr:red by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, whereby this Court held that both 2 Cr.P.C. and BNSS being complete Code in itself, the petitioners therein are required to work out their remedies thereunder, and for the said reason a writ petition is not maintainable, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

5. Having regard to the above submission, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ petitions, urde W.p.Nos. Zl59 ot 2025 & batch, dt. 10.O3.2025, and in terms thereof, these Writ Petitions are also disposed of. No order as to costs. ) I

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passeci in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2O2S, to this order. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ titions shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER I To, Station. Telangana. , Hyderabad, State of office Hyderabad District, Telangana State.

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Sec 2. The Dlrector General of Police, Telangana State at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, At Hyderabad City Police Commissionarate 4- The Aslistant Commissioner of Police, At SR Nagar, For SR Nagar Police 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, At Saifabad, For Nampally Police 6. The Station House Officer, Nampally Police Station At Nampally, Hyderabad 7. The Station Htuse Officer, SR Nagar Police Station At SR Nagar, Hyderabad 8. One CC to SRI SRAVAN KUMAR PURELLA, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at District Telangana State. District Telanoana State. Station Hyderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 10.03.2025, in W.P.Nos.7l59 of 2025'& batch) BSR BS. --d:'1l8!r_.|tu HIGH COURT DATED: 1710312025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.7910 and 7913 of 2025 r '-: i4 €' l 2 0 ilAB 2u6 p * ,?gg p41c$ t DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS b\ FI THE H }.,L"" sRr JUsrrcE r. vrNoD KUMAR W.P.No s9 7L76 7205 7214 and 7329 of 2o25 COMMON O Since t one and the common orde flie:vance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is le, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this t r

2. Heard ined Counsel for the petitioners and the Iearned Government "Jo er for Home appearing for the offlcial respondents 1 and with th c 6nsent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective p e these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at s10n stage

3. Having re disposal, this in all these rd to the nature of lis involved and the manner of I" t rt is of the view that notice to unofltcial respondents I pJtitio.r" is uot necessary for adjudication of the o present Writ tions.

4. Shorn f nnecessary details, the case of the petitroners in brief is tha provlsrons Bharatiya Na t of Se tion 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 774 of tt,e ie respondents-authorities are not following the t J* Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to r eg1 Rs against the unofficial respondents, respectively, basing on laints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents i lcontended as highly illegal and arbitrary I I 2

5. Per confra, Iearned Government Pleader for Ho I e [ppearing for ofhcial respondcnts rvould submit that for non - :ation of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India in view o Court in the r:ase of Gouind Raju Sami Vs ?he and othersl: that in l.he event of the respondent 1S T flth dq Court under cision of this Statt1eo Telangona H) refusing to register FlR, thr: petitioners have alternate remedies p vided under redressal of l F Court undcr austing l I I n I { the Hon'ble Uttar the Code of (,lriminal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to their grievzrncc; urnd that invoking the jurisdiction.of Article 22(t ol the Constitution of India without alternatc remcdjes rs contrary to the riicta laid dow Supreme Corr Prad.esh2.

6. I have pemscd thc re

7. In simil dt.21 .O4.2020 also in W.P.N regard to the Court in M. Subro.moniam and. Ors. I/s. S. a.ki and Orss, wherein the dicta laid dorvn by the Honble Supreme ourt in the case | 20l9 (4) ALr) r?4 t 2oi:)8 (2) scc 109 r12o2oy losct'zzs 3 of Sakiri Vo. a Wit of ca!re{2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that mzs cannot be issued directin g the respondents- authorities to ."L" ter an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates co iJsion of an offence

8. This J, in W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.3r.o r.2024, having re J the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the ,l a on House Officer not registering the crime basing on the complain J"0", the complainant has to avail the remedy of approaching h Superintendent of Police (for short 'SpJ, and in the event of the orities, be it the SHO or the SP, refusing to receive the complaint refistering a FIR and undertaking investigation, the complainant t:j thre further remedy of approaching the concerned Magistrate u by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima commlssl0n f powers confe charge of th satisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing cognizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of i I uirder the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the officer-in- lici station to conduct investigation and submit a p( report. The ensure regrs i/e stat ,,1. r" ed procedures envisage safetlz measures to complaint, even if the SHO fails to register lhe FIR.

9. In the ts of the present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did n ,] S ow to this Court of they availing/exhausting the said remedies 4

10. In vjeu,of the above, and having regard to the enuncial.ccl trv thc Apex Court, this Court is of tion of law as 1'"1 e VlC\V that no direction to tl-re resltondents-authorities to regist { basis o[ the c omplaints lodged by the petitioners, res issued. Hol,r,ver, in the event of the petitioners being FIR on the ive ly, can be reved by the inaction of the respondents authorities in not e tering their complaints, il ts always open for the petitioners to av e remedy of filing a pnvat,: complaint before the concerned Crim ou rt

11. Subiect to thc above observations, the rW titions arc disposed of. No ordcr as to costs.

12. As zr st:quel rniscellaneous petitions pending closcd. No orcer as to costs. i I i shall stand 10,h Marclr, 20i]5 T )D KUMAR, J