Smt. Lambadi Thulasi v. The State of Telangana

Petition _under Article 226 ol 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 more particularly one in the.nature of Writ of [Vandamus, declaring the action of the respondents police particularly respondents 5 and 6 in not registering the FlR, basing on the complaint of the petitioner dated 1olo2t2o25 after receipt of the said complaint through registered post on 07to3t2o25 till date the respondents police did not register any crime and nottakenanyactionagainsttheunofficialrespondentno.Twhoischeatedthe petitioner by taking money of Rs.5,00.0001 in ihe year 2021 fcr providing the job to the soi of the petitioner, but till date not done any justice to the petitioner, the police did not register crime and not taken any action against the 7th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles natural iustice and also violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia includi-rig the Apex Court Judgment Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of uttar Pradesh and cons,:quently direct the respondents police to register the FIR basing on the complairrt dated 1010212025 person i.e., 7t' resPondent in the of the petitioner and punish the accused interest of justice. IANo" 1 0F 202s Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couft may be.pleased to Direct the respondents police particularly 5th and 6th respondents police to register the FIR and take action against the unofficial respondent no. 7, pending disposal of the above main writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOLLU NAGARAJU Counsel ior the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.7:-'- The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 9455 of 2025 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the ofhcial respondent Nos. I to 6, 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.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition and the nature oi lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on he being cheated by the 7*' respondent, promising to provide job to his daughters by collecting an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and, in spite of the petitioner running around the 7h respondent for not providing job, thereafter seeking refund of the amount and on the said amount not being refunded to the petitioner, he had approached the respondents-authorities and lodged a complaint, dl.l}.O2.2O25, and also sent the same to the higher authorities by registered post on 06.03.2025. I !' 2

4. It is thc further case of the petitioner thitl. in spite of the petitioner senciing the aforesaid complaint to the Supcrintendent of Police also. no action is taken thereon nor any c.ime is registered against the <:heating resorted to by the 7*r respondent, which action it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Latita Kumari a. Gooernment of uttar pradesht. 5 Per contro, learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of responden I s su bmits that thc respondents_arrt_horities are in receipt of a complainL dt. 10.02.2025 by registered post and on receiving the a foresaid complaint, the 6h respondent-authority had called the pctitioner to cause preliminary enquiry :and during the enquiry, thc pc'titioner '"vas ca ed upon to show the evidence of payment o[ :rmouLnt alleged to have been pir:d to the 7d1 respondent.

6. Inasmuch as the petitioner failed to show any evrdence in relation to the zrforr:said payment, the authorities have closed the aforesaid complaint as 'civil in nature' on 22.03.2025 and served notice of the action taken on the compraint to the petitioner on the same date ' (zor+) z scc r 3 7 . Learned Government Pleader further submits that in the event of the petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken by the respondents-authorities, he is required to approach the Magistrate concerned to avail the remedies provided under BNSS.

8. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

9. Though the petitioner claims to have submitted a complaint to the respondents-authorities initially on 10.02.2025, the said complaint does not bear any acknowledgment nor the petitioner obtained any acknowledgment of the said submission.

10. The petitioner thereafter having sent the aforesaid complaint to the 6h respondent and to the Superintendent of Poiice by registered post on 06.03.2025, and the respondents-authorities on receiving the same having initiated enquiry there into, cannot claim no action having been initiated thereon.

11. Further, the 6h respondent having called upon the petitioner to substantiate his claim made in the aforesaid complaint by showing the details of payment of Rs.S lakhs made to the 7s respondent, the petitioner having failed to substantiate the aforesaid claim, resulted in the authorities closing the aforesaid complaint as'civil in nature'by issuing intimation to the petitioner 4

12. Sincc, the respondents having closed the :,rmplaint lodged by the peli[ioner by issuing intimation of the action taken, this Court is of t,he r-ieu, that if the petilioner is rrggrieved by the aforesaid action taken by the respondenls-authc rities 1n closing the same as'civil in naturc', is required to approa,:h the Magistrate concerned as provided under Section 173(a) of BNSS instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of thr: Constitution of India

13. lt is settled position of law that in a writ petr.tion filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court rn exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot issue a direction to register an FIR(See: M. Subramaniam & Abr. vs S. Janaki & Anr.2)

14. Since, t.he authorities have now informed r.tris Court of the action taken on the complaint made by the peti,icner by issuing intimation, dt.27.O3.2025, this Court is oI the vie vz that petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedies open to him in law.

15. Granting liberty as noted hereinabove, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs ' atR ottLtNE 2020 sc 3a7 5 16 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending stand closed. sD/- r. rlRUMar-a/oevr DEPUTY REGdIRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1

2. 3 4 5 6 7 q I rJ GJP SECTION OFFICER The Principle Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Building' The State of +f;58t'r11il,8"'.%*Xdt por,.u, relansana state, ofrice at DGP orrice ifl :'Sfffiff31"h.B^'^4:t??,Hs[ff iflyPJ3'nlt;,],WlxlB?t[',,,.,,,", +ffi Bi,B''J'L:[B:[I]':?E:?'::: lilili?rl?]irlli siitid", Aini,'Ifr ,, Wanaoarthv District fl?'3iiilri ff;L-,oti""r' Athmakur Police Station' Athmakur Wanaparthv District giI: g g JL HVdetabaa [aPr] Tyvo QP cogiEs ry- r'?lP,|"lf : lru'tffi * t?5 83le or re r a ns u nu, "t HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ( Q o t 11 APR 2ffi (' \ .t t c ORDER WP.No.9455 pf 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o \\