1. Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. 1. The State of Telangana

9. Smt. Mittapalli Vijaya, Wo. Nagaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.16-4-1 14, Dayananda Colony, Warangal.

10.Smt. Kodam Sharada, W/o. Sateesh, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.10-1 1-4, Ramollawada, Girmajipet, Warangal.

11.Thumma Jannaiah, S/o. Kanakaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Govt. Employee, R:/o. H.No.7-5-1 I, G.M.Office Colony, Janagam Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

12.Smt. Samudrala Padma, Wo. Baburao, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.1 1 -1 8-673/A, Vivekananda Colony, Kashibugga, Warangal District. 13.Erra Kumaraswamy, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged Major, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.1 -1 51/A, Mysampally Viltage, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District. .....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 grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Mandamus, declaring inaction of the 3rd to 5th Respondents in not taking any action against 6th to 13th Respondents, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioners dated 22.01.2025 and 25.01 .2o2s made by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary aAd in violation of Article 14 of constitution of lndia and also consequenfly, to direct the 3rd to Sth Respondents to take appropriate legal action against the 6th to 13th Respondents, as per law, pursuant to petitioner's complaint dated 22.01 .2025 and 25.01 .2025 and also ensure that some protection is provided to the Petitioners to safeguard their lands from the clutches of 9th to i 3th Respondents, in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 3rd to Sth Respondents to take appropriate legal action against the 6th to 13th Respondents, as per law, pursuant to petitioner's compraint dated 22.01.2025 and 25.01 .2o25 and also ensure that some protection is provided to the Petitioners to safeguard their lands from the clutches of 6th to 13th Respondents, in the interest of justice, pending disposar of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI ROHIT POGULA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 5 : Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 13 : - The Gourt at the stage of admission made the foilowing ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 9677 of 2025 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners on 22.01.2025 and 25.01.2025, are not initiating action try registering the FIR against the unofhcial respondent, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Iearned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the officia.l 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.

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

4. Learned counsel appearrng on behalf of petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Llome 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 29?5 f I t t I t 2 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and the said common order would apply in al1 force to the facts of the present case.

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Pctitions, uide W.P.Nos.7159 . of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and in terms thcreof, the presenl Writ Petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 1O.O3.2025, to this order.

7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if an;,, pending shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// t\ AS SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI qISTANT REGISTRAR _ _,:_ \ SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Secretary, Home Department, At Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Warangal Police Commissionerate at Warangal' 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Warangal Police Commissionerate, East Zone, Hanumakonda, Warangal.

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Warangal Police Commissionerate, /amnoor, Warangal.

5. The Station House Officer, P.S. Enumamula Warangal District' 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at I \ To Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI ROHIT POGULA, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies sA oo- LS (Along with a copy order passed in w.P. Nos. 7159 of 2025 & batch, dt: 10.03.2025) \II :'. .r.-&.!&,- j!*1t-i..,'i B'--. ---:-=;::- HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 ) I ORDER WP.No.9677 ol 2025 1l\l: i" .-, q , 2 E frir ?U5 ( : I I ,,. a-:-'=:---7 DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS, ( ro- .-- T,|fr["t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR VI.P.Nos.7159 7176 7205 72L4 and,7329 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in a-11 the writ petitions is one ald 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 petiilons are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved ald the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unollicial respondents in a1l these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present wrii 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 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section t74 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofficial respondents, respectively, basing on tf.e complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 2

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for oIficial respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constrtution of India in view of the decrsion of this Court in the case of Govind Raju Sami Vs The State of Telangana 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, 7973 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 contrary to tlne dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs State of tlttar Prad.esh2.

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

7. In similar circumstalces, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2019, dt.21..O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and, 12697 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 and W.P.No.38397 of 2019, having regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subramrl.niam and. Ors. ys. S. Janaki.and. Ors3, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in tl-re case | 2ot9 (4) N,D ti4 ' zoo8 1z; scc +oe ' lzozo; t6 scc u zt 3 of Sakiri Vasds case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register alr FlR/crime, even though the complaint frled indicates commission of an offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 ar.d 72691 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol.2o24, 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 'SP'), ald 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 complaint; and that on the Court being pima facre satisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, tJre Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the ofhcer-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation and subrnit 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. In view of the 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, respcctivcly, 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 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-

72. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as lo costs. T. VINOD KT'MAR, J 10th March, 2025