The High Court · 2025

that the respondents-authorities are not initiating action to register FIR basing on the complaint made by the petitioner against the persons named therein, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard leamed Counsel for the petitioner, the leamed Govemment 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. i. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned ( , Govemment Pleader for Horne appearing for official respondents submit that the issue involved in t}le 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 in itself, the petitioners therein are required to workout their renredies thereunder in relation to non-registration of \ 2 crime, 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.

4. Havrng regard to the above submission, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, vide W.p.Nos.7l59 of 2025 & batcl, dt.10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, this Writ petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

5. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos.7l59 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, to rhis order.

6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. I //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \J 1 . The Principal Secretary to Govemment, Home Department, The State of 2. The Cornmissioner of Police, Warangal Commissionerate, Warangal Distrid, Telangana, TelarBana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Telangana.

3. The Statkrn House Officer, Police Statbn Kazipet Warangal 4. OneCCto SRI MD. FASIUDDIN, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. IOUTI (Along with a copy of the order passed in W.P. M.71 59 of 2025 & batch, dated 10.03.2025)

6. Two CD Copies To, BN LS HIGH COURT DATED:26103,t2025 ORDER WP.No.8818 of 2025 1HE S14 Ro( c , 3 0 AFi ?[?5 ( :L Dalar-rf(\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS /2 4t /o I I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR V.P.Nos. 7159.7L76.72O5.7214, ar.d 7329 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievarrce of the petitioners in all the writ Petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by ttris common order.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petiti,oners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing br the o{frcial 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 tJre nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notic€ to uooflicia-l respondents in all these writ petitions is rrot necessarJr for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions. Shom of un ecessarJr details, the case of tlre petiti'oners in 4 . brief is that the respondents-auttrorities 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 tsNSS') by initiating action to register FIRs ^gainst the unoflicia-l respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitraqr- 2

5. Per antra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under lvticle 226 of the Constitution of India in view of ttre decision of this Court in the case of Goaind. Ro,Ju Saml Vs The State of felangana and. othersr', that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under tle Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal of tleir grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Arncle 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contrarSr to tlrre dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sckirt Tasu 7s S:tate o! Uftar Pradeshz.

6. I have taken note of the respectirre contentions urged and perused the rer:ord.

7. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.2449S of 2O19, dt.2l.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2O24, arrd also in W.P.No,37446 of 2022 and W.P.No.3839Z of.2O19, having regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in *I. Subtz.ma.niann qnd, Orc. Ys. S. &nalcl cnd Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case ' zou la; eLo ur '? zoog (z) scc qo,) ! (zozo) re scc r:r I 3 I of Salciri Vcsu'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 tJeough the complaint frled indicates commission of an olfence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt'31'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 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 concemed Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being prima facie satisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the oflicer-in- charge of the potce 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. g. tn the facts of the present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not show to this Court of ttrey availing/exhausting the said remedies. 4

10. In view of the above, and having regard to the position of law as enunciated b), 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 lodged by ttre petitioners, respectively, can be issued. However, in the event ofthe petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents-authorities in not registering t}Ieir complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private complaint before tJle concemed Criminal Court. I 1. Subject to the above observations, 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 costs. lOtr March, 2025. T. VINOD KT'MAR, J [ 3166 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR wRlT PETITION NO: 8818 OF 2025 Between: Saheda, Wo Syed Khasim, aged 40 years, Occupation Housewife, Fl/o H.No. 9-500, Srinagar Colony, Kazipet , Blue Dart, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govemment, Home Depa(ment. Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Warangal Commissionerate, Warangal District, Telangana.

3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kalpet Warangal ...PETITIONER ...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 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of the Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the police Respondents as illegal, arbitrary for not registering the crime against the accused and direct the Respondent police to consider the complaint. lA NO: 'l 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 consider the cornplaint daled 221712O24. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD. FASiUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VTNOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8818 of 2025 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities are not initiating action to register FIR basing on the complaint made by the petitioner against lhe persons named therein, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard leamed Counsel for the petitioner, the leamed Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents, and with the consent of the leamed counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and leamed Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for oflicial respond€nts I t submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7 159 of 2025 & batch, d1.10.03.2025, whereby this Court held that both Cr.P.C. and BNSS being complete Code in itself, the petitioners therein are required to workout their rernedies thereunder in relation to non-registration of 2 \ crime, 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.

4. Having regard to the above submission, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ petitions, vide W.p.Nos.7l59 of 2OZ5 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, this Writ petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

5. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos.7l 59 of 2025 & barch, dt.10.03.2025, to this order. 6 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.AMMAJI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Principal Secretary to Government, Horne 2. The Commissioner of Police, Warangal Commissbnerate, Warangal District, Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana.

3. The Station House Of[rcer, Police Station Kazipet Warangal 4. One CC to SRI MD. FASIUDDIN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] (Along with a copy of the order passed in W.P. No.71 59 of 2O25 & batch, dated 10.03.2025) / To, BN LS

6. Two CD Copies t' \ HIGH COURT DATED:26103!2025 ORDER WP.No.8818 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /2 {t /o THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. WNOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7L59. 7L76.72o5,7214. atd 7329 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is one ald tJ'e same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the oflicial respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel apryarrng for the respective parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposa-l at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lrls involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unoflicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions. Shorn of unnecessary detaits, the case of tlre petiti,orrers in 4. brief is that the respondents-authorities are not folloviing the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., arrd Section. 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiatirg 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 itlegal and arbitrary. 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 case of @ollnd Raln Sa.rt Vs the Statc of Telangala and. othersr; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have altemate remedies provrded under the Code of Crirninal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal o[ ttreir grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Arncle 226 of the Constitution of India qrithout exhausting the alternate remedies is contrary to tlrre dicto laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saktri gasu Is Stcrte oJ tlttar Prqd.eshz.

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

7. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.2449S of 2O19, dt.2l.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 and W.P.No.38397 of 2Ot9, having regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in . Subra.nanlanm and Ors. Vs. S. Jcnaki qnd Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case ' 2oto1+1elo tz+ : zoog (z) scc los ' (zozo) ro scc rzt 3 of Salciri Vcsz's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mondamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint {iled indicates commission of an offence. l

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and 72691 of 2D2O, dt.3l -O1.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in ttre event of the Stati,on House Officer not registering tlle crime basing on the complaint made, tJle complainant has to avail ttle 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, tlre complainant has the further remedy of approaching tlre concerned Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; ald that on the Court being pima facie satisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognLable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the officcr-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safet5r rneasures to ensure registration ofa complaint, even if the SHO fails to register the FIR.

9. In the facts of tl e present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not show to this Court of they availing/exhausting the said remedies. 4

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 al FIR on the basis of the cornplaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be issued. However, in the event of the petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents-auttrorities in not registering their complaints, it is a1ways open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private complaint before the concerned Criminal Court.

11. Subject to the above observations, 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 costs. T. VII{OD KUMAR, J 1oth March, 2O2:j