The High Court · 2025

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, doclaring 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: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent police to consider the complaint dated 23-7 -2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD. FASIUDDIN Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ------------7 THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 8a24 of 2o25 I ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities basing on the complaint made by the petition<'r are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the person(s) named therein, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard le eirncd Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents, ar-rd with the consent of the learned counsel appearing frrr the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Learnerl counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home_ appearing for the official respondents submit that the issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. I O.O3.2025, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

4. Record ing t he same, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Peritions, uide W.P.Nos.7l59 of 2O2S & batch, Y dt. 10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, the present 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.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03 2025, to this order'

6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// SD/-A. SRINIV REDDY ASSISTANT R GISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1 The Princioal Secretary to Government, Home Department, The State of Telanoana. i.irnolni ielanqana Secretariat, saifabad, Hyderabad' Z in"'Cl.ilissibrb-rtt potiCe, Wardngat Commissionerate, Warang@l District, a. iiJsiriiJn House officer, Police Station Dhqlnagagar, Warangal +. on" cc to sRt MD. FASIUDDIN, Advocate toPqcl 5. i;; 6c.i"'GP Foi HorttE, Hign court forihe Stale of relangana' [oUTl 6. Two CD CoPies BN LS (Along with a copy ordcr passed in W.P. No. 7159 of 2025 and Batch, dt' 10'03'2025' to this ordcr.) W t HIGH COURT DATED:2510312A25 ORDER WP.No.8824 of 2025 -'11''-' -'.l: :- (-t 3 ,j A,'il 2[25 ) w2, cl3 p a:rc DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ${ x5 \,\ € THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7L59.7176.7205.7214. an.d 7329 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievalce 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 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 and disposal at admission stage-

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is ofthe view that notice to unoffrcial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessar5r for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following tlle provisions -of Section 15a(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 uno{ficial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrar5r. 5- Per contra,learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for officia-l respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR,. the petitioners calnot 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 Gooind Raju So,mi Vs The State of Telangdnd and othersl; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to. register FIR, the petitioners have afternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance; ald that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art:cle 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contrary to tl:.e dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sckiri Vosu Vs Stotc of llttar Pradesh2.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused tJ:e record. 7 . In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2019, dt.21.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 1269t of 2O2O, dt.31.01.2O24, artd also in W.P.No.37446 of 2O22 and W.P.No.38397 of 2019, }ravir,g regard to thd law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subro,mz,nlam and Ors. ys. S. Jaa.o,ki and Ors3, wherein the dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case ' zotg (+) eto r+ ' 2oo8 (2) scc 409 r 1zozo1 ro scc zza ,/ of Sakiri Tasu'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 thoggh the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence-

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and, 12691 ot 2O2O, dt.31.O7.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.p.C., had held that in the event of the Station House Offrcer not registering the crime basing on the complaint made, the complainant has to avail the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of police (for short SpJ, 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 compiaint; and that on the Court being pima faae satisfied of the contents of the complaint disciosing 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 police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safet5r measures to ensure registration ofa complaint, even if the SHO fails 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. i I 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 an FIR on the basis of the 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 avaii the remedy of fiIing 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. VINOEI KUMAR, J 106 March, 2025