High Court · 2025

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 a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus', declaring the inaction of the respondent no. 3 in taking immediate steps for registration of crime basing on the report submitted by the petitioner dt.123-r}25 and taking action against the concerned persons by conducting enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent no.3 to register crime and take action against the concerned persons and proceed with investigation lA NO: 'f OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rr support of the petition, the High Corrt may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to register crime basing - on the report d1.12-3-2025 submitted by the petitioner and proceed with investigation and take further-action against the concerneC persons, pending disposal of the ab(lve writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DANTU VENKATA RAMANA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. LOa49 of 2O2S ORDER The grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities, basing on the complaint made by the petitioners on 12.O3.2025, are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the person(s) named therein, which action of the ofhcial respondents it is contended as highty illegal and arbitrary. I \

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, 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 I I for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the ofhcral respondents submit that the issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

4. Recording the same, for rcasons alike as rvere stated in thc aforesaid Writ Petitions, uide W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, 2 Frr dt. 10.03.2025. an.l in terms thereof, the present writ Petition is also disposccl of. tl*o order as to costs.

5. Registrl is directed to append a copy of thrt order passed in W.p.Nos.71 59 of 2025 &. bakh, dt. 10.03.2025, to this order.

6. Consequcnllv, miscellaneous petitions, if a:r'y, pending shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.SREERAMA MU DEPUTY RTHY TRAR V SECTIQN OFFICER District. District. 1 The Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, T.S..Hvderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Potice, Cyberabad, at Gachibowli, narigj i;ddy- 3. The Station House Officer, Shamshabad police Station, Ranga Reddy 4 One CC to SRI DANTU VENKATA RAMANA SARMA. Advocate ropucr 5. Two CCs to GF, FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of fetangiri; ai -' 6. Two CD Copies ry-- Hyderabad [OL T] BM PSK t \ fi)r4t F., ,*|::P' HIGH COURT DATED:1 010412025 ORDER WP.No.10849 of 2025 ,a 5 o 1 HE Sre I4: ,f. C\ 11 7 APB zffi ,\rrc,lr'.:tc'j -\= s () z o + DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { r(V THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR UI.P.Nos. 7159,7176, 7205.7214. an.d,7329 of 2o25 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 leamed Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for the offrcial 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 arrd the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unoflicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shom of unnecessa.ry details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section I74 of tl:.e Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) 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 Horne, appearing for official responclents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners calnot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court rn the ca se of Gooind. Raju Saml Vs The State of Telangana and, othersl; :hat in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, ttre petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 ot BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Ariicle 226 o{ the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remerfies is contrary to tbe dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sclctri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Prqdesh2.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the rec:ord. 7 . In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2019, dt.27.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 72691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2O24, and also in W.P.Nc,.37446 of 2022 and W.P.No.38397 of 2019, having regard to the lew laid down by a three-judge bench o1'the Supreme Court in M. Subrama.niam and Ors. 7s. S. Janaki drtd Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Ccurt in the case | 2oto 1+l eLo t;+ '? 2oo8 (2) scc 4oe I (2020) 16 scc 728 3 of Sakiri Vasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint frled indicates commission of an offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and. 72697 of 2O2O, dt.sl.Ol.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House Offrcer 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 further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima faae satisfied of tl:e contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS cal direct the officer-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation ald 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

10. In view cfthe above, and having regard to the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of th: view that no direction to the respondents-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the cornplaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be issued. However, in the event ofthe petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of tlre respondents-authorities in not registering their complaints, rt rs always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private ,:omplaint 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 miscellaneous petitions pending if .any shall stand ciosed. No order as to costs. T. VINOD KUMAR, J 10'h March, 2025 9ra