The High Court · 2025

The State of Telanoana. Rep. by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, HyderJbad.' The commissioner of porice, office of porice commissionererate warangar The Assistant Commissioner of police, Hanumakonda. The Station House Officer, Subedari police Station Hanumakonda. Pulicheru Ramulu. S/o. Chinna yellaiah, Age.40 years. Occ. Business, F/o. H.No. 1 -7- 1 726, Srinivasa Nasar, BJiaijm;Jiari,'fJn"amronoa. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, Direction or an order more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the inaction of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein registering a complaint against the sth Respondent herein and his men, the culprits involved in the criminar trespassing into the property of the petitioner herein situated in prot No.36 (part) out of sy. No.1066 to an extent of 178 Sq'Yards situated in srinivasa Nagar corony, Barasamudram, Hanumakonda within the jurisdictionar rimits of Subedari porice Station as arbitrary, iilegar, high handed, capricious, viorate the fundamentar rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articres 'r4, 21 0t the constitution of rndia apart from being in vioration of the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play and consequently direct the Respondent 2 to 4 herein to register the complaint, investigate the crime. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Nos.2 to 4 to take appropriate steps in pursuance of complaint daled 22 03.2025 lodged by the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 1068l of 2o25 ORDER: The grievance of thc petitioner in the present Writ Pctition is that the respondents-authorities basing on the complaint made by the petitioner oa 22.O3.2O25 arc not initiating action by registering the FIR against the unofficial respondent, which action of the official respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for I iome appearing for the oflicial 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 ftb involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for l{ome 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 2O2S \ t ) & batch, dt. 1O.03.2025, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were st'rted in the aforesaid Writ Pctitions, uide W.P.Nos.7159 o{ 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, the present Writ Petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the ordcr passed in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.O3.2025, to this order' 7 . Consequer-rtly, miscellaneous pctitions, if any, pcnding shall stand closcd. I, //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. JAYASREE DEPUry REGISTRAR SEC TlOi,l OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat' State of Telangana' Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of Police Commissionererate Warangal 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police' Hanumakonda' 4. The Station House Officer, Subedari Police Station Hanumakonda' 5. One CC to SRI J VENKATESWARA REDDY, Advocate lOPUCl 6.TwoCCstoGPFoRHoME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana.[oUT] 7. Two CD CoPies (Along with a copy of the Order, dated 7159 of 2O25 & batch' dated 10-03- 2025 lo this Order) BSK LS r HIGH COURT DATED:10104t2025 l-.4 .'v =$ !J {- s \ 9 v * Ir,. rJ

4.-. lr'll ORDER WP.No.10681 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /o /,'t ,/<t THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR 'W.P.Nos. 7159, 7176.72o'5,7214' and 7329 of 2025 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 leamed Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the olficial 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 petitioners in 4. brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 of tl:e 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 respond.ents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary' 2

5. Per contra, learned Govemment pleader for Home appearing for ollicial 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 Gouind Raju Somi Vs The State of Tetdngorro- antd. othersl; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, j.g73 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 contrary to ttre dittt laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Salcin vasu Vs Sto.tc of IJttar Prad.esh2. 6 I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the record.

7. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.24495 of 2O 19, dt.21.O4.2020, W.P.No.8189 and t269t of 2O2O, dt.3t.Ot.2024, arrd also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 and, W.p.No.38397 of 2O19, having regard to the law laid down by a three_judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subramaniom and. Orc. I/s, S. Jcnaki and Ors3, wherein the dicta taid down by the Hon,lcle Supreme Court in the case ' 2ot9 (4) r'.I-D t71 ' zoos 1z) scc aol ' (2020) r6 scc ?2i 3 of Sclciri Tasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wit of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint fi1ed indicates commission of an oflence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 al].d 12691 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol.2024 ' having regard to the provisions of the Cr-P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House Olficer 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 concerned Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facre 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. g. 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 ofthe above, and having regard to the position oflaw 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 petitioners, respectively, can be issued. However, in the event of the 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 concemed Criminal Court.

11. Subject to the above observations, the Writ petitions are disposed oi No order as to costs.

12. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pe;ding if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. T. I,INOf,I KUMAR, J lod March, 2025