Dhanalakshmi v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 5 in not registering the case against the respondent No.6 even though the petitioner: had lodged a complaint before the Sth Respondent on 30-12-2024, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to register the case and arrest the respondent No.6. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circun.rstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to aid the petitioner for inspecting the condition of the demised premises i.e., Flat No.B10, Second Floor, F:'rime Dwelling Apartments, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR w.P. .8439 of ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities are not initiating action to register FIR against the unofficial respondent(s), 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 petltioner, 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 /s involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent(s) is not necessary for adjudication of the present Wrlt I I Petition. ';

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 Petition 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 2 in itself, the petitioners therein are required to workout th eir remedies thereunder, ancl for the said reason a writ petition is not mainlainable, and the said commcn order would apply in all force to the facts o,, the present case.

5. Having rr:gard to the above submission, for reasons alike as were stated in the aroresaid writ petitions. videw.p.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, ernd in terms thereof, this Writ petition is also Cisposed of. No order as to .lsts.

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the orde pjssed in w.P.Nos.7159 ctt'2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, to this order. 7 Conseouently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ln this writ petition shall :;tand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA TDEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER il. To, \, T.S. Hyderabad T.S

1. The Principal {ie<;retary, Home Department' SecreYariat Buildincls' Hyderabad' 2. The Commissioner of Police' Hyderabad Police Cornmissionerate' 3. The Asst. Conrmissioner of Police' Baniara Hills Division' Hyderabad' T'S' 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police' West Zone' Hyderabad' T S' 5. The Station House officer, Banjara Hills Police Station' Hyderatrad' T'S' 6. One CC to SRI K.GANI REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State o' Telangana at Hyderabad [CtUT]

8. Two CD CoPies (Along with the copy of order dated 10'03'2025' in W'P'No..I159 ot 2O25 & batch) BSR q$' I I \ ., s , l.l & .,r.+ HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 ORDER WP.No.8439 of 2025 r l-i f 14 i'(. Bo( 1/ fiPrm6 t I 11- .,.'r -. . _ .r,,ga\ ------,a/ ---;:-- () t \r) \. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ?t' t\ 9(>z-. THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos.7159 7175 72o5 7214 allil 7329 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in a1I the writ petitions is one ald the same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order-

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners ald 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 ald disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposa.l, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessar5z for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-autlorities are not following the provisions -of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., ald Section 174 of t}re Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoffrcial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 2 Per contra learned. Government Pleader for Home appear.ing for 5. offrcial respondents rvould submit that for non - registration cf FIR' the petitioners ,;annot invoke the jurisdiction of t}lis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decisron of this CourtinthecziseofGouindRajuSamiVsTheStatnofrela7.go,'/.(r ojnd othersl; that in the event of the respondent SHO refu sing to register FIR, the petitioners have a.lternate remedies providec under the Code of CdlrLinal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redrt:ssa-I of their grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Cour': under Article226oftheConsttutionoflndiawithoutexhaust;ngthe alternate remedies is contrar5r to tine dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vrzs'u Vs State oJ'Uttar Pradesh2.

6. I have tal:en note of tl1e respective contentions urged and pemsed the record. In simila: circumstances, this Court in W'P'No 24495 <f 2Ol9' 7. dt.2l.O4.2O2O. \.ri.P.No.8189 and 72691 of 2O2O, dt 31'01 20124' and also in W.P.No i\7446 oI 2022 and W'P'No'38397 of 2019' having regard to the larv laid down by a three-judge bench of the Siupreme Court in M. Subrama'niom and Ors. Vs' S' Jancki and Orss ' wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in l:he case ' 2ol9 (4) ArD 174 ' 2oo8 (2) scc 409 r (2020) 16 scc 72E { 3 of Sakirt Vosu's 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 frled indicates commission of an offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 ar,d 1269 | 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 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 SP), 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 pima faae satisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognDable offence, the M^grskate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS ean direct the o{ficer-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safet5r measures to ensure registration of a complaint, even if the SHO fajts 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

10. In vievr olthe above, ald having regard to the position oflaw as enunciated try the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no direction to tho respondents-authorities to register arl FIF| on the basis of the conplaints lodged by the petitioners, respectivel.,,, can be issued. However, in the event ofthe petitioners being aggrievr,d by the inaction of thr: respondents-authorities in not registerirg their complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the rt:medy of filing a private r:omplaint before the concerned Criminal Court.

11. Subjecl to the above observations, the Writ petiti,)ns are disposed of. .No order as to costs.

72. As a seqr:el miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order .as to costs 10th March, 2025 T. VUYOD KTIMAR, J