High Court · 2025

5. Sri Chernaqgni Sharath Kumar, S/o Chennagoni Bal Raju, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Employee working in Abroad, peimanent Ad1dres6. H.No.4-30, Swamuluvari Lingotam, Choutuppal Mandal, yadadri District-508252. Curient Address. 23b,.Kelman Road, Kelston, Aukland, New Zealand post Code. 0602.

6. Sri Chennagoni Anjaiah, Sio Lingaiah, Aged About 50 years, Occ. Ex- larpanch/Political Leader, Rio H.No. 4-30, Swamulavari Lingottam Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri District. 7 9r19h. Balraj, S/o Lingaiah, aged about 59 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio H.No. 4-30, Swaniulavari Lingottam Village, Choufuppal Mandai, yadadn' District. B. Sri thennagllni Kamalamma, W/o Ch. Balraj, Aged about SO years, Occ. Agriculture, F/o t!.No. 4-30, Swamulavari Lingofram Village, ihoutuppal Mandal, Yadadri District.

9. qr! Pabbqt! Yadaiah, S/o Anjaiah, aged about 42yearc, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No.1 'l -22, Panthangi adadri Disrict.

10.9mt. QaQQatlswgpla, Wo Dabbati Yadaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.1'l-22, Panthangi Village,Yadadri Disrict- 'l 1 . Sri Maragoni Shravan Kumar, Sio Venkatesh, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Automobiles Business, Rl/o Panthangi Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents police in not registering the FIR basing .on the Petitioner's complaint dated 10-1 1-2023 lo the Respondent no.4 herein and not conducting fair investigation and enquiry into the offence mentioned therein as highly arbitrary and illegal and against the rules of Police Standing Orders and consequently direct the Respondent no.4 to register the FIR and conduct fair investigation and enquiry basing on the Petitioner's complaint dated 10-1 1-2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 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.4 to register the FIR and conduct fair investigation and enquiry basing on the Petitioner's complaint dated 1O-11-2023 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A SRINIVASULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI VANKINA ALLU AND PARTNERS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 11 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 10567 ot 2o.24 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ petition is that ihe respondents-authorities, basing on the complaint made by the petitioner on lO.ll .2023, are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the unofficial respondents, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly iltegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the iearned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearirrg and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of 1ls involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.S to 11 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 the ofhcial respondents submit that the issue involved in the writ petirion is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Wp.No.7l59 of 2O2S 2 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and the said common order rvould apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated irr the aforesaid Writ Petitions, uide W.P.Nos.7159 of 2O2S & batch, dt. i0.03.2O25, and in terms thereof, the piesent Writ petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/.T. JAYASREE DEPUW BEGISTRAR :( \K SECTION OFFICER To, Secretariat, HYderabad - 50O 022' 1 The Princioal Secretary Home Department' Government of Telangana' ' 2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.

3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate' at Hyderabad. 4 The lnsoector of Police, Choutuppal P'S'' ftachakonda Commissionerate' ' Choutuipal Post, Yadadri District'

5. One CC to SRI. A SRINIVASULU Advocate IOPUCI 6. One CC to SRI VANKINA ALLU AND PARTNERS Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana [OUTI . Two CD CoPies B KKS LS Yr I \ L& B f-..,,* '-'-f*J HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 ORDER WP.No.10567 of 2024 B , 'u1' r s .s- -: CAt 't\ i ,I ,: t/ (, cHcc DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ caRqd &" THE HON'BLE SRJ..IUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7159,7176, 7205. 7214. alail7329 ot 2O25 COMMON ORDER: Since ttre grievance of the petitioners in all ttre 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 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 manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unoffrcial respondents in a.ll these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petilions.

4. Shorn of tlnnecessary 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 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ 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. : I -,/ ./ ,/ 2

5. Per contra,learned Government pleader for Home appearing for official respondents would submit that for non _ registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of t}ris Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Govind. Raju Sarrti Vs The State of Telangana and, others'i that in' the event of the respondent sHo refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressa.l of their grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of t.I.is court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contrary to the dicta laid down by the Hon,ble in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs State of tlttar Supreme Court Pradeshz.

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

7. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.244 gS of 2019, dt.2r.O4.2O2O, W.p.No.S189 and. 12691 of 2O2O, dt.st.Ot.2(,24, arfi, also in W.P.No.SZ++A of 2022 and W.p.No.3g397 of 2019, having regard to the law laid dourn by a three_judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subrams.nlo;n and Ors. Vs. S. Jctnorki and Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case ' zolg (a) eLo tz+ '2008 (2) SCC 409 '(2020) r6 scc 728 3 of Salciri Vasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categoncally held that a Wit of Mandamus calnot be issued directing the respondents_ authorities to register arr FlR/crime, even though tJre complaint hled indicates commission of arr offence.

8. This Court, in W.p.No.8189 and, t26g1 of 2O2O, dt.3t.O7.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.p.C., had held that rn the event of the Station House Oflicer 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 ald undertaking investigation, the complainant has the further remedy of approaching the concerned Magistrate Court by Iiling a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facre satisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cogrrizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the 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 compiaint, 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. 7 4

10. In view ofthe 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 petitioneis, respectively, 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 miscellaleous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as lo costs. T. VINOD KUMAR, J 106 March, 2025