High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telanoana,, Represented by its principal Secretary, Home v, '!ru '| ""u'p 2. The Commissioner police, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3. The De.puty Commissioner of police, North Zone, Gandhi Nagar, 4. The Station House Officer, p.S. Chilkalguda, Chilkalguda, Hyderabad. 5. The lnspector of police, p.S. Chilkalguda, Chilkalguda, Hyderabad. 6. Bhukya Anudeoo. Sio.Not known to. petitioner, Age. Major, Occ. lnspector of 7. S. Srilatha, W/o.Late S. Narsing Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occ. House wife. Potice, p. S. Ctiiikatsuda, Chiitr'rg;di Fii;i;;;b#: R/o. 1 2-1 0-5e0/az. otd posi.offi-c;'t#,''B;:id;"d,;o=iy Warasiguda, Secunderabad. aarery rane, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 and 3 in not taking action against the respondent No.4 to 6 based on the compraint fired by the petitioner dtd -24.02.202s, and not registering the crime against the 7th respondent in connection with the commission of offence of murdering the petitioner's son, inspite of the petitioner's representation dtd '1 7 ()3 2025 which was received by the 2nd respondent on 28 'O3 '2025' is illegal voir and opposed to articles 14, 19 arrl 21 of Constitution of lndia and conseclue ntly direct the respondent police to r':gister the crime against the 7th responclent for the offence U/sec.302 of IPC;/1C:i(1) of BNS Act and conduct investigation by filing final report in accordance lvith law' IA NO:1OF 2025 'Petitionttnde-sectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircurrstancesstated in the affidavit filed i'r support of the petition' the High ()ourl rna y be pleased to direct the 5th resplndent/police to register crime against the 7th respondent basedonthepetitiorer,scomplaintdld.24.o2.2o2sforthrvith,pencingdisposalof the above Writ Petitir;n Counsel for the Pelitioner: SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos'1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos'6 and 7:--- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR w P.N o2 of 02s o RD R: The grievance oF the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondents-authorities, basing on the complaint made by the petitioner, are not initiating action 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.

3. Having regard to the nature of /s 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 ZO25 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, whereby this couft herd that both cr.p.c. and BNSS being comprete code t l 2 in itself, the petitioners therein are required to work out the r remedies thereunder, and I'or the said reason a writ petition is not maitrtainable, and the said commor order would apply in all force to the facts ilf .he present

5. Having rr:t;ard to the above submission, for reesons ali<e as were stated in the af<lresaid Writ Petitions, videW.P.Nos.7159 of 20 15 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, ;tnd in terms thereof, this Writ Petition is a s(l crisposed of. No order as to ccsts.

6. Registry i; directed to append a copy of the orcler passed in W.P.Nos.7159 cf 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, to this ,trder.

7. Consequr:rrtly, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall st;rrrd closed. \ //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY IFT ANIT REGISTRAR ASS , i' l i '' sEcrtoN oFFlcER To, Secunderabatl The Principal li ?cretary, Home Department' Secretar at' The f:itate of Telangana H Ylerabao' The Comrniss c ner Police' Banjara Hills' Hyderabad' The Deputy C lmmissioner of police' North Zone' Gardhi Nag ar' The Station Hcuse Officer' P S Chilkalguda' Chilkalgruda' tly'lerabad The lnspectolrf Police, P S' Chilkalguda' Chilkalgucla' Hydelabad' One CC to S'i Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao' Advocate IOPUC:] Two CCs to rlP for Home' High Court for the State 'lf TelernElana' at Hyderabad [C)t-JT] 1 2 3

4. 5 6 7 o Two CD CoPie's IJ f+ (Alonq with the cop)' oroer passed in W'P' Nos' 7159 of 2025 & trat ;h' dt:tooe.zozs to th s order) ,*.**c -a .: ,{..:r- ''I :..., a' t' HIGH COURT DATED:0710412A25 7:i L 4 /\l q /..' <, ,/ I i,' .'I:i !li'- oRDER ii;. \; WP.No.10 221'tI 2025 r"' ..:j, v t- =$ s* DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS flo- t1 ?-': 2t THE HoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD I(UMAR W.P.Nos .7159 7176 72o5 7214 and 7329of 2025 COMMON OR.DER 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 ald 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 taften up for hearing and disposai at admission stage.

3. Haung regard to the nature of lls involved ald the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unoflicial respondents in a1l these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ petitions

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents_authorities are not foltowing the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.p.C., and Section lZ4 of tle Bharatiya Nagarik Suratsha Sarhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoflicial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 2 :i

5. Per contra'learned Government Pleader for Home appezrri Lg fol- ofliclal respon<len -:; rvould submit that for non - regislration o FIR' the petitionersi cilrlnot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court rnder Article 226of the lonstitution of lndia in view of the clecision of this coufi in the case tr Goutnd Raju sami vs The state of relongana ond otnersll thlt in the event of the respondent SIIO re:Llsing to register FIR the letitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Crirolna-l Procedure' 1973 or BNSS to stek retlressal of their grievance; led that invoking the jurisdiction of this Clor-rr under Arlicle 22(> of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedit:s is contrary to t..e dicta laid dowr by t'e Hon'ble in the case of Sckiri Vasu Vs Sto:te o'f Uttar Supreme Coufl Pradesh2

6. I have taken perused the retxrrd note of the respective contentions trg:d and 7 In similrr- circumstances' this Court in W'P No 244')5 of 2Ol9' dt.21,.O+.2'020 W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O ' d1 31 r1 2)24' and also in W.P Nc 37446 of 2022 and W.P.No 38397 of 2()1!r' having regard t, the lew laid down by a three-judge bench of t:re supreme Court in M' Subramaniom rrnd Ors' Vs' S' Janaki otad Orss' wherein the di';ta laid down by the Hon'ble Supremr: Corrrt i:r the case ' 2ol9 (4) Al-t) 17r ' 2oo8 (2) scc 409 ' (2020) 16 scc 728 .,, 3 of Sokirr Vas,,s case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mand.amus calnot be issued directing the respondents_ authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of al offence.

8. This Cou rt, in !V.P.No.8I89 and t2691 of 2O2O, dt.3t.O7.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.p.C., had held that in the event of the Station House OIIicer 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 complainr by registering a FIR axd underraking ,.*",;"r.r, ;;" complainalt has the further remedy of approaching the concerned Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facre satished of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cogrrizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers confened under the Cr.p.C./BNSS can direct the officer-in_ charge of the police staton 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 ttre present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not show to this Court of they availing/exhaustrng the said remedies. ; 1, It 4 I

10. In vieu' of tbe above' and having regard to the position oi 1zw as enunciated by th: Apex Court' this Court is of the vlew thi 't no to register ar FIR o:r tht: direction to itLe l't'spondents-authorities basis of the compLrrints lodged by the petitioners' respectively ' c an be issued. Horve-"'er' in tire event of the petitioners being allgrieve d ly the in not registeri:rg iheir inaction of 1he respondents-authorities complaints' it is ; lways open for the petitioners to avail the ren edy of filing a private cc roplaint before the concemed Criminal Cotrt t ' 11. Sublect tc the above observations' the Writ P€titio-Is are disPosed of Nc rrrler as to costs' I miscelianeous petitlons pending if an1' 'sh'a 'l stand

72. As a seqr: closed. No orde:' as to costs T. VINOD XUMAR, J lotr' March 1102 >