High Court · 2025

Judgment

6. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariate Building, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana Police Head Quarters, Lakdi Ka Pool, Hyderabad-500004 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Osmania University Division, Hyderabad. The Station House fficer, Police Station Osmania University, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or Direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus be issued to Respondent No 1to 6, more particularly respondent no.6 in not registering the first information report based on the complaint submifted by the petitioner on 16-04-2O24 is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional, contrary to law and against the pr'inciples of natural justice and consequently direct Respondent No 1 to 6. more particularly respondent no.6, to register the case against Nathala Ram Reddy, Yadagiri and their henchmen and to take necessary action and to .'6ke measures to protect the life and property of the petitioner and her family members and consequently. 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.6 to register the First lnformation Reporucase on the complaint dated.16-4-2o24 lodged by the petitioner against Mr.Nathala Ram Reddy, Yadagiri, their henchmen and to take necessary action by giving protection to the petitioner and his family members, pending disposal of this writ petition and consequently. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt Y. SHASHIDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. llO59 of 2ol24 ORDERT The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that basing on the complaint made by the petitioner on \ L6.O4.2024, the respondents-authorities, are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the person(s) named therejn, which action of the respondents-authorities 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 alld disposal at admission stage.

3. l,earned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and iearned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official 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.O3.2025, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

4. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, uide W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, 2 dt. 10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, the present Writ petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

5. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pencling shatl stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSIS 'eTTYl-1 CTION OFFICER To, artment of Home, Secretafl ate Building, BRK 1. The PrinciPa ana, Hyd erabad. Bhavan, The 2. The Director General of Police , State of Telang ana Police Head Quarters, I Secreta State of Dep ry, Telang ad Police Commissionerate, Hyderabad

3. 4. 5 b Lakdi Ka Pool, HYderabad-500004 The Commissione r of Police, HYdera The DePutY Commissioner of Police, East Zone, HYd erabad The Assista nt Commissioner of Polic e, Osmania University Division, Til:"J*,il* House officer, Police Station osmania Vniversitv' d;LE6'5'i'V. strJsniahai Reddv, Advocalq [oPUc] ' il; 66.'i" cp ioi Ho.6,'iiigh c"i'h for the Stdte of relangana' at . Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUTI Hvderabad' 6 I I wJ T LS 't HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 ORDER WP.No.11059 of 2024 ( oe 1t{E 51 o o , t 0 5 ltiit 2p25 Sn4t CHCO QA (f f .: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS P cop&'[ W ffilaP i-- tl t !!!G!i--if I=r+ rr'rlrrFtt rq !-t't--: " r' '- =r:l' -l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KT'MAR W.P.Nos.7159 7176 7205 72t4 alad 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 Government Pleader for Home appearing for the officia.l 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 unollicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessaq/ for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessaqr 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 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Salhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs agarnst the uno{Iicial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal arrd arbitrary. Z

5. Per contra, learned Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents would submit that for non - registration 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 Goalnd Raju Sami Vs The State of Telangana and. othersr; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have altemate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contrar5r to tine dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vosu Vs Sto:tc of lfttar Ptadesh2-

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged arrd perused the record.

7. In similar circumstances, this Court.in W.p.No.24495 of 2019, dt.2L.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.S189 arrd t269r of 2O2O, dt.31.01.2024, and also in W.P.N o.37446 of 2022 and W.p.No.38 397 ot 2079, rra./rng regard to tJ:e law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M, Subrrrma.nlo,ra- and. Ors. I/s, S. Janaki and. Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case ' zots 1+; alo ti+ '? 2oo8 (2) scc 409 I (2020) 16 scc 728 3 of Sakiri Vcsu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that e Wit 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 ar,d 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O7.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in 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 'SP'), and in the event of the authorities, be it the SHO oi the SP, refusing to receive the complaint by registering a FIR and undertaking investigation, the complainant has t}le further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by liling a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima Jacie 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 cal direct the officer-in- charge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The abbve stated procedures envisage sa-fety 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 shov/ to this Court of they avajling/exhausting the said remedies. i :1 4 I t tO. In view ofthe above, and having regard to the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of the vie,w. that no direction to the respondents-authorities to r-egister an FIR on the basis 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 filing a private complaint before the concerned Criminal Court. 1 1. Subject to the above observations, the Writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

72. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if arry shall stand closed. No order as to costs. 10s March, 2025 9ra T. VINOD KTIMAR, J