High Court · 2025

"'lI*Ur"O*ra*ra Petition under Article 226 of 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.4 in not registering a crime against the respondents 5 and 6 who are habitual extortionists in nature and played fraud usurp/grab lakhs of rupees from the petitioner on the name of sale of their house property basing on the complaint dated 6-3-2025 having received the complaint by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of 173, 174, 175 and 1 76 of BNSS and also contrary to the settled principle of law laid down by the constitutional courts and consequently direct the respondents to register the crime against the respondents 5 and 6 on the compliant of the petitioner dated 6-3-2024 received by the 4th respondent or to direct the Magistrate court on filing of Application under Section 180 BNSS (200 cr.P.c.) by the petitioner to receive the same and to take cognrzance IA NO: 1 OF 20 25 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 respondents 2 to 4 to register the compraint made by the petitioner on 6-3- 2024 and received the respondent No.4 against the Respondents 5 and 6 or to direct the fMagistrate court on filing of Application under Section i 80 BNss (200 cr.P.c.) by the petitioner to receive the same and to take cognizance pending disposal of the Wril petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MIRZ.A RIZWAN ALIBAIG Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: - The Court made the following: ORDER i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.N 0.8040 of 2025 OR ER The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities basing on the complaint made by the petitioner are not initiating action to register FIR against the unofflcial respondents, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official 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 the nature of /is involved in the Wrlt Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition' I I I \

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petltion is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt.10'03.2025, whereby this Court held that both Cr.P.C. and BNSS being complete Code in itself, the petitioners therein are required to workout their remedies ) F.i thereunder, and for the said reason a writ petition is not maintainabre, 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 arike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ petitions, videW.p.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, this writ petition is arso disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos.7159 ot 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, to this order. 7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition sha ll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P, CH. NAIS.ABHUSHAMBA EPIJTY REGISTRAR SE:rlTlON OFFICER To I

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat, Hvderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Commissroner of Police, Karimnagar City, Karimnagar 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar City, Karimnagar 4. The Station House officer, ll-Town P.S. Karimnagar, Karimnagar city' 5. One CC to SRI MIRZA RIZWAN ALIBAIG, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at (Along with a copy of the order dated 10.03.2025 in WP.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch) Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies PSK LS !f2 t \ .! HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 ORDER WP.No.8040 of 2025 + o \ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ W r /.t:- S14 14: Ct li. \ 'f 24 lirL 2;25 \ ( -r :' b)t .i.i ')i/' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7L59.7176,7205,72L4. 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 learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govemment 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 heaaing and 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 unollicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shom of unnecessary 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 unoflicial respondents, respectively, basing on ttre complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 2 'l

5. Per contra, learned Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for oilicial respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Arttcle 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court in the r:ase of Gouind. Raju Sanni Vs The State o! Tela.ngana q.nd othersti that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have altemate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal 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 the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vo.su.t Vs State o! tlttar Pradesh2-

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

7. In similar circumstances, this Court_ in W.p.No.24495 of 2O19, dt.2l.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 12691 ol 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2024, 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. Subramaniann and. Ors. I/s. S. Jono,kl and. Orss, wherein tJle dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ' zorc 1l1alo rzr ' zoot 121 scc ao,, '(2020) t6 scc 7:8 I I I , 3 of Sakiri gasz's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even thougb the complaint ltled indicates commission of alr offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O7.2O24, 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 complainalt has to avail the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police (for short SP], and in the event of the authorities, be it the SHO or the SP, refusing to rec€ive the complaint by registering a FIR and undertaking investigation, the complainart has the further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by fir1ing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facr-e satished of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cogrrizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the oflicer-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safety measures to ensure registration ofa comPlaint, even if the SHO fails to register the FIR,

9. ln the facts of the present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not show to this Court of they availing/exhausting the said remedies. 4 -'1 \

10. In view ofthe above, and having regard to the grosition of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no direction to the respondents_authorities to register al FIR on the basis of rhe 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 Criminal Court. 11. Subject to the above observ:rtions, 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 cosls. 10fr March, 2025. T. III{OD KUMAR, J I I I