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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring inaction of Respondent No.'1 to 5 for not considering the police complaint and representations d1.04.03.2025, 0S.03.2025, 10.03.2025,

15.03.2025, in respect of my grievance and not regis;tr-.ring the FIR against respondent No.6 to 8, is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, u nconstitution a I and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of lndia and violation of principk:s of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to register FIR against Respondent Nos.6 to 8 upon my police complaint dt.O4.03.2025, 0 j.03.2025 and conduct detailed investigation accordance with law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 to register FIR against Respontlent No.6 to B upon my police complaint dt 04.03.2025, 05.03.2025 and conducl detailed investigation accordance with law, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.RAMMOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1to5 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.6to8 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. a952 of 2o25 ORDER: 'lhe grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petitton is that the respondents-authorities basing on the complaint made by the petitioner are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the unofhcial respondents, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. lJeard learned Counsel for the petitioner, lcarned Government Pleader for Homc appearing for thc official rcspondents, and with the consent of thc lcarned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the u,rit petition is taken up for hearing and disposai at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofhcial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Icarned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents submit that the issuc involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision o[ this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 1 2 &batch,dt.lO03.2O25,andtl-resaidcommonorrlerwouldapplyin all force to tlre lacts ol the present case' Re<:orrlinq the same , for rcasons alike as "r'ere stated in the 5 alorcsaicl Writ Petition s, uide W P Nos 7159 .of 2025 & batch' dt. 10.03.20.15, and in terms thereof, the preserrl Writ Petition is also disposc I c,[. No ordcr as to costs'

6. Registrl rs dirccted to append a copy of [le order passed in W.P.Nos.71l,9 of 2025 &, batch, dt'1O'03 2025, tc' this order' 7 Conscqttcnllt,. riiscellaneous petitions, if r'rry, pending shall stitncl closccl. //TRUE COPY// SDIP. C TI. NAGABHUSHAMBA UTY REGISTRAR ,.', l'I !SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary,t{ome Department Secret Telangana, Hyderabad' I s' a al Buildings, State of

2. The Director General of Police' Hyderabad 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad' Gachibowli' llyderabad 4. The Deputy Oommissioner of Police' Medchal Division' Hyderabad 5.ThestationHouseofficer,tVledchalPoliceStationMerlt;halMalkaigiriDistrict. 6. One CC to SRI J.RAMMOHAN RAO' Advocate [OPUOI T.TwoCCstoGPFORHOME,HighCourtfortheState:fTelanganalOUTl 8. Two CD CoPies dated 10-03-2025 in VV P No 7159 of 2025 & (Alono with a coPY of the Order' batcrito this orderl BSK LS A.t, I HIGH COURT DATED:2510312025 /(. 2 2 nrn 2q5 I I A.lf Cf F-O + it; \ ORDER WP.No.8952 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,// /.,2 // /a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7159 7176 7205 72L4 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 drsposed 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 Iearned 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 manncr of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication ot the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in bnef is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 ot the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS,) by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofficial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 2 r'ri''-

5. Pcr conlrLt, lr:arncd Governmet-rt Pleader for Ho me appearing for olhcial rcspor-rdr:nts rvoulcl submtt that for non - re11i;tration of FlR, tlre petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of tllis Court under Article 226 o:'llic Constilrrtion ol India in view of the decision of this Court rn the ,:ase of Govind .Raju Sami Vs The Siate of Telangana o.nd otherst thal in the event of the respondent IJIIO refusing to register FIR, thr: pr:tilioners have alternate remedies llrovided under the Codc o[ (--lirnina] Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to se,:k redressal of their gricvancc; :rn<l that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Artir:le 22(r oI thc (]onstitution of India without exhausting the :rlternatc rt:rcrlies is contraty to the dicta laid dowr: by the Hon'ble Supremc Cor u t in the casc of Sakiri Vasu Vs ,State of Uttar Pradeshz.

6. I have lal{cn notc o[ the rcspective contentir,ns urged and perused thc rr corcl

7. ln sirniirrr circulnstances. thrs Court in W.P.No 24495 of 2079, d,t.2l.O4.2O2C\. W.t'.No.8189 ancl 12691 ot 2O2O, dt.il 1.01.2024, and also in W.P.NIt.37446 ol 2022 ancl W.P.No.38397 t:f 2019, having regard to the law lairl clorvn by a three-judge bench ;1'the Supreme Court rn M. Subro,maniarn and Ors. Vs. S. Janaki and Orss, wherein the d;r'la laid dou,n by the Hon'ble Supreme C'lrrt in the case ' 20 t9 (4) At-D t74 2 2oott (z) st'c,tog r (2020) t6 scc 728 I I 3 of Salciri Vasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wnt of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crlme, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and 7269t of 2O2O, dt.3I.Ot.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 'SPJ, and in the evcnt of the authorities, be it the SHO or the SP, refusing to receivc the complaint by registering a FIR ancl undertaking investigation, the complainalt has the further remedy of approaching the concerned Magistrate Court by frling a private complarnt; and that on the Court being pnma facie satisfied o[ the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under thc 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 safety 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 availing/exhausting the said remedies. 4

10. Lr vicrv o[tlrc abovc, atrcl having regard to the ])osition oflaw as enunciatcd trv thc Apex Court, this Court is of 1r,: view that no directiolr to thr: rcspond cnts-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the ( onrpliiints Iodged by the pctitioncrs, respectively, can be issued. However, rn the event o[ the petitiorrers being aggrleved by the inactron o[ 1hr' respotrdents -authorities in not :-egisterrng their complaints, ir is always opcn for the petitioners to av ril the remedy of filing a privalt' complzrint before the concerned Criminal Court. I 1. Subject lo thc above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No ordcr as to costs.

12. As a si quel miscellancorts pctitions pending il eny shall stand closcd. No ortlcr as to (('sls. T. 1IINOD KUMAR, J 10 . March.20.15