High Court · 2025

Farooqnagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, though the unofficial respondents having no right over the above land have illegally trespassed into the above land and further though the petitioner have made oJt a prima facie offence as committed by the unoffigial resporldents, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd qespon{ent police to take immediate action as against the unofficial respondQntE for their illegql lrespass and in illegally removing the boundary stones to the residential plotq in Sy. No. 220- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Pgtitioq under Sqction 151 CPC prayiQg that in the qirpurnslances stated in the affidayit filed in support of the petition, the High QouS may bq ploased tp issue interim grder directing the 2nd respopdgnt Police to tallq cognizance of the complaipt dated 25-03-2025 as lodged by the petitioner as 4gainst the unofficial respondents for their illegal trespasl and in il|egally rempving !he. boundary stones to the land in Sy No. 220, admeaquqing Aa 12-31 gttntas at Faraqqnagqr Village and [r/andal, RAnga Reddy Distric.!, pQnding disposal 9f rqain Writ Petition. Counsel for the Peti'lioner: SRI M.DAMODAB REgDY Counse! for the Respondent Nos$P FOR HOME lkL The Cqurt mqde the folloyving; ORQER i ---------r' THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.10283 of 2025 ORDER: 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 disposar, this court is of the view that notice to unofficiar 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 2OZS & batch, dt.10.03.2025, whereby this Court held that both Cr.p.C. and BNSS being complete Code I I _li 2 --r 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 facG of the present

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 i:; also disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order pabsed 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// To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, S Telangana. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT \t \ SE:':TION OFFICER Hyderabad, State of '7

2. The Station House Officer, Shadnagar, Police Station, Shadnagar' Ranga Reddy Pistrict

3. One CC to SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY, {dvocate IOPUCI 4.TwoCCstoGPFoRHoMF.HighqourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CQ CoPies (Alqng wllh the copy of order dated 10.03.2025, in W.P'No'7159 ol 2025 & batch) BSR BS V{ 1 \ t* HIGH COURT DATED: 0710412025 ORDER WP.No.t0283 of 2025 t o o i tr.E S iA i 15 APn ilp5 , I o Espartl$ ) DISPOSING OF THE WRlr PETITIoN' WITHOUT GOSTS 6cp tl4 \c+- €Fo't THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR w.P.Nos. 7tS;9.7176,7205,7214, and 7329 0f 2025 i 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 Govemment 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 unofficial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petilioners in

4. 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 BNSS) by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoffrcial 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

5. ollicial respondents would submit that for non - registrar'ion 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 Gouind Rcriu Saml Vs The Stdte of Telangana and otherst. that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to I register FIR, the petitioners have a-lternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ot BNSS to seek ledressal of their grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Clourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the altemate remedies is contrary to the dicla laid down by the Hdn'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vcsu Vs State of Uttor Pradesh2.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions rlrged and perused the record.

7. In simtlar circumstances, this Court in W'P'No 244\)5 of 2O19, dt.27.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt1]1'01'2024, and also in W.P.Nc 37446 of 2022 and W.P.No'38397 of 2019, having regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Sub':o;rrra; iam and Ors. ys' S' Janaki and Ots3' wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme C)ourt in the case | 20r9 (4) ALD t74 ': 2oo8 (2) scc 409 r lzozoy te scc rzr l a of sokiri Tasz 3 case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorica y trerd that Writ of Manda,"rus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of art oflence

8. This Court, in W.p.No.8l89 and, 12691 of 2O2O, dt.3t.Ot.2[24, 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 the Superintendent of police (for short .Sp), 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 concemed Magrstrate Court by liling a private complaint; and that on the Court being prima fao'e 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 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 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. I I : j j *tr/ 4

10. In view of the above, and having regard to the positiorl of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of the vierv that no direction to the respondents-authorities to r.egister rrn FIR on the b4sis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners, 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 fiIing 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.

12. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if ;uy shall stand closed. No ord,'r as to costs. T. VINOD I('MAR, J loth March, 202 5