Kauser Tasneem 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.6 not taking any action against the Respondent No.7 who beat the minor son of the Petitioner over his head and also slapped in the Mosque and continuously harassing the Petitioner and her entire family members, inspite of complaint dated '10-03.2025 followed by personal visits of the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, besides violation of this Hon'ble Court directions and consequently direct the Respondent No.6 to take immediate action against the Respondent No.7 by registering FIR for beating the minor son of the Petitioner over his head and also slapped in the Mosclue and continuously harassing the Petitioner and her entire family members lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to take immediate action against the Respondent No.7 by registering FIR for beating the minor son of the Petitioner over his head and also slapped in the Mosque and continuously harassing the Petitioner and her entire family members, by considering the complaint dated 10.03.2025 lodged by the Petitioner, pending d,sposal of main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SYED MUSAB RAHIM HASHMI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T, VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.9717 of 2025 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities are not initiating action basing on the complaint made by the petitioner to register FIR against the unofficial respondent(s), 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 official 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. t \

3. Having regard to the nature of /is involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent(s) is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents submit that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court 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 2 *..=I 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 case.

5. 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 also disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order pjssed in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, to this order.

7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.AMMAJI EPTJTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER t, To,

1. The Principal Secretary Home Department, Secreta rI at, Hyderabad 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West Zone, Hyderabad, Telangana -State

5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Golconda Division, Hyderabad, Telangana State

6. The Station House Officer, Langer House Police Station, Hyderabad 7. One CC to SRl. SYED MUSAB RAHIM HASHMI Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies KS LS (Along with the copyof the Order dated 10-03-2025, WP.NOs.7l59 of 2025 &batch) HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 ORDER WP.No.9717 of 2025 ( -:-)() 1$ F 6 TA, ^- 2I APf, 2[25 T OESIAT t! ) !a t\ I l DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 ,l I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos.7159 7t76 7205 7214 ard 7329 of 2025 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 the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing fo. tft. respective parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. 3- Having regard to the nature of ltls involved and the malner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents in al1 these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions. Shorn of unnecessary deta-ils, the case of the petitioners in

4. brief is ttrat the respondents-authorities are not following the provisiols. of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 of lr]e Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoflicial respondents, respectively, basing on t}le complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 2 rred Government Pleader for Home appearing for 'uld submit that for non - registration of FIR, invoke the jurisdiction of tl-ris Court under .,re Constitution of India in view of the decision of this -ourt in tlre case of Gooind Raiu So:ni Vs The Stote of Telangana a.nd. othersl; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under tlre Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 or BNSS to seek redressal of their gr:ievance; arrd that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contrar5r to t}:,e dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scrkiri Vasu Vs Stote of Uttar Prad.esh2.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the record. 7 . In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2O 19, dt.2l.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2O22 and W.P.No.38397 of 2O 19, having regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. s,ubro:tnd;niann and. Ors. Vs. S. Janoki and Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ' zore 1+; alo r z+ 2oo8 (2) scc 4oe ' (2020) 16 scc 728 '? 3 i of Sakirt Vasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mandamsls cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of al offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol.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 tJ:e 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 liling a private complaint; and that on the Court bektg pima faoe satished of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a coglizabie offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the oflicer-in- charge of the potice station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safet5r 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 I

10. ln view ofthe above, and having regard to the position oflaw 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,intheeventofthepetitionersbeingaggrievedbythe inaction of the respondents-authorities in not registenng 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 Peti ons are disposed of. No order as to costs' t2. As a sequel misceilaneous petitions pending if any shatl stand closed. No order as to costs. loth March, 2025 gr0 T. VINOD KUMAR, J I