Biba devi, Wo. Surender Jha, Age- 4 v. 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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus directing the Respondents 2 to 4lo register a criminal case and to take up investigation in the interest of justice and consequently direct the Respondent 2 lo 4 to consider my complaint dated 2610212025 in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 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 Respondent No.4 to issue FIR by considering my complaint daled 261O212025 in the interest of the justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR - W.P.No.B8 3 of 2O25 z ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities are not registering FIR based 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 learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 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

3. Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents submit that \ the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Couft 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 thereunder, 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 CASC. 2 +. Having regard to the above submission, for reasons alike 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.

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 in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.L.LAKSHMI BABU DEPIJTY REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To, /

1. The Principal Secretariat, Home Department S 2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Balanagar Division, Balanagar, riat, Hyderabad Hyderaba<i, Medchal -Malakjgiri District

3. The Assistant Commissioner Of Police, Balanagar Division, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Medchal- Malakjgiri District.

4. The Station House officer, Jagadgirigutta Police station, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal- Malakjgiri District.

5. One CC to SRl. SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies KKS LS (Along with the copy of the order WP.NO.7l59 OF 2025 & BATCH, DT'i0 03 2025) +*- HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 v' i,,//r) lt!t!- /.' t l t- At, C\ L, * o {-t / =$ s \F\ it' ia) \\? \*,* \ I ORDER WP.No.8823 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR I W.P.Nos. 7159. 7176. 7205. 7214. and 7329 of 2o25 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 tl.e learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the ofhcial 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 of the view that notice to unoflicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary 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 the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 of ttre Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS') by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofEcial respondents, respectively, basing on tJle complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illega-l and arbitrary. 2

5. Per contra, Ieamed 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Gooind. Raju Sanni Vs Tle State of Telatugdna and othersl; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate 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 contrar5r to th'e dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sokiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh2 -

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

7. In similar circumstarces, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2O79, dt.27.O4.2O20, W.P.No.8189 ald 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.01.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 alrd W.P.No.38397 of 2019, having regard to the 1aW laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M, Subrama.niam and. Ors. Vs. S. Janaki drtd Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ' 2ol9 (4) ALD 174 ' zoos 1u; scc +oo r (2020) r6 scc 723 I I a I 'I I I I I I I of Saftiri Vasu'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 though the complaint fi1ed I indicates commission of an offence-

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and, 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2O24, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House Olficer not registering the crime basing on the complaint made, the complainant has to avaii 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 fi1ing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima Jacie 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 officer-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage saJety measures to ensure registration of a 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 avaiiing/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 an FIR on the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be issued. However, in the event of the petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents-authorities in not registering ttreir complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private compiaint before the concemed Criminal Court.

11. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

12. As a sequel miscellaleous petitions pending if any shall stand closed- No order as to costs. T. VINoD KUMAR, J loth March, 2O25