High Court · 2025

5. The station House officer, Gachibowri police station, Gachibowri, Hyderabad. 6. Dupati Sriniva.s. Rao, S/o- Dupati Tirupataiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ- "No.255, Tettapui, r-iyOeiaOaO, Business (BuflrJer), R/o. My Home Arikura Viita Telangana. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the afrrdavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents No. 2 to 5 in not registering the FIR in pursuant to the oomplaint of the petitioner dated 16.03.2025 against the unofficial Respondent No.6 / Accused, though the cognizable offence committed by him as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of -/' natural justice and consequently direct the official Respordents No. 2 to 5 to register the FIR duly effecting the anest of the accused and conduct investigation by following due procedure of law. I.ANO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents forthwith to register the FIR against the Unofficial Respondent No.6 / Accused mentioned in the complaint of the petitioner dt 16.O3.2025, while seizing his passport, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NAKKA MAHESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 5: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : -- The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER I i ,l -"rG4*salllrtF THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KT'MAR W.P.lto. 9661 of 2o25 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities, basing on the complaint rnade by the petitioner on 16.03-2025, are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the unofficial respondent, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary'

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the leamed Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official iespondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the u'rit petition is taken up , , I for hearing and disposal at admission stage'

3. Having regard to the manner of disposal o[ the Writ Petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is o[ the view that notice to unoflicia.l respondent is noL nccessarv for adjudication of the present Writ Petition. l,earired counsel appearing on behalt of petitioner and 4. learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the ofhcial respondentssubmitthattheissueirrvolvedilrtheWritPetitioniS squarely covered by a decision o[ this Court in WP No'7159 of 2025 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 L l I I I i l I t I I 2 & batch, dt. IO.O3.2O2S, and the said common c,rder would apply in all force to the facts of the present case. 5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ petition s, uid_e W.p.Nos.7lS9 f 2025 & batch, dt. f O.O3.2O2S, arrd in terms thereof, the prescnt Writ petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. Registry is directed to append a copy of tlLe ordcr passed in W.P.Nos.7l59 of 2O2S & batch, dt.tO.O3.2O2S, to thrs order. 7. Consequenfly, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI 'r DEPUTY REGISTRAR '\.\. \ J secr,oN oFFrcER \ \:__- ---

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Sec .u,u, a,r,. of retansana at Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner Of Police, Cyberabad Commissione'ate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

3. The Dy.Commissioner Of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

4. The Assistant Commissioner Of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

5. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State ol Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI NAKKA MAHESH, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order passed in WP.No.7159 ot 2025 and batch, dated 10.3.2025 to this order) ($- l I i l I I I To SA LS c +. r 14St-HR)e c t) a- o 2 4 JUt'r ZU5 i\; \- fs, a r-t H HIGH COURT DATED:0110412025 ORDER WP.No.9661 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. ?* )+ 1\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.l{os. 7L59.7176. 7205. 72L4. aod,7329 6f 2O2S COMMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is one and the same, these wnt 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 olficial 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 rhe nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unoflicia-l respondents in all these writ pctitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecess.lry cletails, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the res pondc n ts -authorities ate not following the provisions of Section I5+(3) ot the Cr.P,C_, and Section 174 of tt,Le Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhrta (for short 'BNSSJ 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

5. Per contra,learned Government pleader for Home appearing for oflicial respondents would submit that for non _ re gistration 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 Govlnd Raju Sami Vs The State of Telang.rna and. othersr; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have a.lternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction o[ rhis Court under Article 226 of the Constifution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contrary to the dicta laid dowr. by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the ease of Sckiri Vasu Vs State of l)ttar Prdd.esh2. 6 I have ta-ken note of the respective contenticns urged perused the record

7. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.24495 ot 20 19. dt.21.O4.2O2O, W.p.No.8t89 and, t26gt of 2O2O, d(.3r.ol 2024. anct also in W.P.No.3Z446 of 2022 and, W.p.No.38397 of 2O19, havrng regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench r,[ the Suprerne Court in M. Su,b;a,moniam o;nd. Ors. Vs. S. Jannki a.nd Orst, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hontrle Supreme Cr urt rn the case t0 t9 (4) ALD 17.{ lo()lr (2) scc 409 'rlol0) I6 scc 72t I I I I I i ! I I 3 a of Scklrl yc.su's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorica.lly held that Wit of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence

8. This Court, in W.p.No.8l89 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.3t.Ol.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.p.C., had held t}lat in the event of the Station House Ofhcer 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 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 furrher remedy of approaching the concerned Magistrate court by firing a private complaint; afld that on tfre court being prima Jac.ie 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 ollicer_in_ charge of the potice station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated proccdures envisage safe$r measures to ensure registratron o[ a complaint, even if the SHO fails to register the FtR-

9. In the facts of the present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not sholv to this Court of they availing/exhausting the said remedies. 4 I

10. In view ot the above, and having regard to the pcsition of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of tho view that no direction to the respondents-autl:orities to reBister 1n FIR on the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be rssued. However, in the event ofthe petitioners being;ggrieved by the inactron of the respondents-authorities in not rrgistering their complaints, it is always open for the petitioners to ava I the remedy of filing a private complaint before the concemed Criminal Court'

11. Subject to the above observations, the Wri Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 12- As a sequel miscella:neous petitions pending il lny shall stand closed- No order as to costs. T. VINOD KUMAR, J I Orh March. 2025