Sri T.S. Sunil Kumar v. ana

4. The. Station House Officer, Police Station, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Telangana. 5. Mr. L.S. Sundar John, Sio A.X. John, Age. 51 years, Occupation. Business, Rl/o H.No. 10-24116, Lane No.8, Vasanthapuri Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 6. M/s CR Constructions, Rep. by L.S. Sundar John and Mr. Marlyn Rahul Francis Xavier, F/o Flat No.302, 4th Street, Vani Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

7. Smt. Ch. Jyothi Kumari, Wo Late Ch. Rajinikanth Srinivas, Age. 48 years,Occ. Private Service, Rl/o Flat No. 302, Sri Sai Nilayam Towers, Vani Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

8. Mr. Marlyn Rahul Francis Xavier, S/o Not Known, Age. Not Known, Occupation. Partner, CR Constructions, Rl/o 10-1-207, West Manedpally, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 action of the respondent in NOT registering any crime against the respondents no.s to 8 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, and Article 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 4th respondent to conduct a fair,. impartial and expeditious investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2O23 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,and pass 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 grant interim directions directing the Respondent No.3 to consider my complaint 01-03-2025 for registering the FIR against the Respondents No.5 to 8 for the offences of Cheating with knowledge by dishonestly inducing that is wrongful, Criminal breach of trust and Criminal conspiracy. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.L. KANTHA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.5to8 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER I I l ------7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 10732 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 on 01.03.2025 are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the unofficial respondents, 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 Home appearing for the official respondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective partics, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this is of the view that .Court notice to unof{icial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleadcr lor [{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 2025 I 2 & batch, dt. 1O.03.2O25, 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 stated in the aJoresaid Writ Petition s, uide W. P.Nos.7 159 of 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 order passed in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 1O.O3.2025, to this order.

7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.S. MALI-IKARJUNA RAO ASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR '.q SECTION OFFICER l.ThePrincipalsecretary(Home),secretariat,stateofTelangana,Hyderabad - 500026.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Vayupuri, Neredmet - 500056.

3. The Deputy Cohmissioner of Police, Malkaigiri Zone, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

4. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Telangana' 5. One CC to SRI T.L.KANTHA RAO, Advocate. IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana' [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. Along with a copy of the Order, dated 10'03-2025 in W.P No'71 59 of 20251o ( this Order ) BSK LS ft I HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 =:::=:_-. 1 .-_L,\t.. s s '4 UJ F o 9,, oJC) v * Ll a) o c, *,y'/ ORDER WP.No.10732 of 2O2S DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o c{t"6 'ft"w I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 7 159, 7 71 8, 7205. 7 214, as'd, 7 329 ol 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 learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents ald with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parLies, these writ petitions are ta-ken up for hearing and l 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 necessaqr 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 following the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sura-ksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS') 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. I 2

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for oflicial 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 Goaind Ra;u Sami Vs Thc Sitaite oJ Telall.igorno. dnd. othersr; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance; a,nd that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the a-lternate remedies is contraqr to t!:,e dicto laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakirt Va.su Vs State of Uttar Pradesh2.

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

7. In similar circumstances, this Court. in W.P.No.24495 of 2079, dt.27.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.S189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2024, and also in W.P.No.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. Subranna.niam and. Ors. Irs. S. Jaaalcl and. Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case I 2ote 1a; eLo r,r zoou 121 scc aos ] (zozo) to scc zzs '? 3 of Sckiri Vasu t 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 filed indicates comnission of an offence.

8. This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and 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 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 '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 CouK by f-rling a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima faae 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 *ie police station 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 tJ:e present cases, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not show to this Court of they availing/exhausting the said remedies- 4 I I

10. In view ofthe above, and having regard to the position of law 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 petitionJrs, 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 Iiling a private compiaint 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 any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. 10s March, 2025 T. VINO,D KUMAR, J