Lalitha Kumari v. State U.P. in W.P. No

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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in issuing letter / notice No 44 / MK / 3 / RKC I 2018 dt. 24-0 2-2018 purporting U/Sec. 91 and 160 Cr.P.C. without taking action and issuing FIR on my complaint dt. 23-02- 2018 received by Respondent on 24-02-2018 as arbitrary, malafide, ,.,..--,..-..=-:-,illeEalandinviolation.ofSection-..149'-'l54CRPc.'and.law-taid.down-in20'l4€G 187 Lalitha Kumari Vs. State U.P. in W.P. No. 27838 of 2015 dated 30- 09-

2015. : l! i' . j' .:.: ;:.i: r..ri,1 ;'J:i;,r.-.1 . ';.-. li.r.. ,:i:tl .,...;r..i:.,1.,r..: i;f,;:+,:tlii,tf.i*# ,,,, lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend Lr' No. 44 I MK / 3 / RKC I 2O1B dt. 24-02-2018 purporting to U/ Sec. 91 and 161 Cr'P'C thereby directing the Respondents 2 to 4 to act according to Judgment reported in 2014 SC 1gZ pursuant to my complaint dt. 23_02_201g received on 24.02-201 8.' lA NO: 2 OF 2C18 Between: V. Hanurnantha Rao, S/o. Laxma.iah,. aged about 65 years, R/o. H. No. 2_2_ 18StS6t14 B, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabii SOObrS. AND ..PETITIONER 1' The Statr-'of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary to Home department, S ecreta riat, H yd erabad.

2. The corrmissionerof porice, Rachakonda, Hyderabad. 3. The Dy. (lommissioner of police, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 4. The lnsp,-'ctor of porice, porice station - Uppar, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Occ: -trlajor Cricket Club

5. P. Maherrdra, S/o: Not Known aged: Major, Occ: Treaurer 6. K. Anil Krrmar, s/o: Not Known Aged: tvlilor, occ: Vice president 7. Shivaji sro: Not Known Aged: Mrj-or, occ: eiayeis Nominee 8. K. Hanunranth Reddy, S/o: Not Known Aged: 9. Parchuri sridhar, s/o: Not known Aged: Malor, olc: secretary of Rishiraj 10.G. Vivekzrnand S/o: Not Known Aged: Major, occ: president 1 1. Bhanu Prasad, s/o: Not Known Aied: Major occ: secretary of Kakatiya 12.Basva Rerj, s/o: Not Known Aged : Magor, occ: commerciar tax 13.Ramana ?ao, s/o: Not Known Aged:Major;.occ:.Emproyee.of Visaka 14.Agam Rac, S/o:-Not Known Aged:-Major * 15. Prakash Chand Jain, /o: Not Known Aged: Major, represenlative, Cricket Club lndustries R.No.S to 15 R/o c/o Rajiv Gandhi lnternationalstadium Uppat Ranga Reddy, District H'rderabad. .l t Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased implead to array Respondent Nos 5 to 15 as Respondent Nos 5 to 15 in the writ Petition and interim application in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. PRADEEP AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I rHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 7571 of 2018 ORDER: Thls Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...fo r'ssue a wit, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the action of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in issuing letter/notice No.44/MW3/RKC/2018 dt. 24-02-2018 purporting Ll/Sec.91 and 160 Cr.P.C. without taking action and issuing FIR on my complaint dt. 23-02- 2018 received by Respondent on 24-02-2018 as arbitrary, malafide, illegal and in violation of Section 149, 154 Cr.P.C and law laid down in 2014 SC 187 Lalitha Kumari Vs. Sfafe of U.P. in W.P. No. 27838 of 2015 dated 30.09.201 5, pass......"

2. Heard Mr.M.V.Raja Raam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearinl; for respondent Nos.1 and2.

3. Leirrned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's representation was not properly acted upon and that the issuance of notices under Sections 91 and 160 of the Cr.P.C. by the respondents is unsustainable. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present vvrit petition seeking appropriate directions.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that uporr receipt of the petitioner's representation dated 23.02.2018, a notice wirs issued on 24.02.2018 under Sections 91 and 160 Cr.P.C. requiring the petitioner's appearance and catling for relevant material 2 for consideration. However, since the petitioner did not respond thereafter, no crime was registered. He further contends that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of a crime, he ought to have availed the alternative statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have perused the material placed on record

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation was not acted upon by the police. However, the action taken by the res.pondents, issuing notices under Sections 91 and 160 Cr.P.C. pursuant to his representation, demonstrates that the representation was indeed considered. ln this factual context, it cannot be said that the police authorities failed to act upon the petitioner's representation.

7. lf the petitioner is still aggrieved by the non-registration of a crime, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. The legal position in this regard is well settled. ln Saklri Vasu v. Sfafe of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907) and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2O2O SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that when the grievance pertains to non-registration of an FtR, the proper recourse is to invoke the remedies available under the Cr.P.C., such as filing an applica$L under Section 156(3) or initiating a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. \ 3 ln the absence of any exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Cotrrt finds that the relief sought under Article 226 cannot be entertairred. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the statutory remedies availabkl before the competent Magistrate, in accordance with law, should l'ris grievance continue to subsist.

8. Ar:cordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER ITRUE COPY// To,

1. One pt3 to Sri It/. V. Raja Raam, Advocate [OPUC] : 2. Two Ctls to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hydererbad [OUT]

3. Two Cl) Copies TJ TKS d{-, ? a HIGH COURT DATED :'|-111112025 Tr.rE s t () * 1 2 l'lAB ?07fr * ORDER WP.No.7571 of 2018 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION ',{P. ,r\)'6 :,|':