Puli Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad' 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Balanagar, Hyderabad' 4. The lnspector of Police, Balanagar Police Station, Hyderabad' 5. The Station House Officer, Balanagar Police Station, Hyderabad' 6. Smt. Subhadra, W/o. not known to the Petitioner, Aged about 55 years, Occ. House Wife,

7. Anuradha, Wo. Shekar, Aged about 28 yearb, Occ House wife' (Both Resoondent Nos'6 and 7 are resident of H No'2-139, Jalalpur' b"-'iinidtr-tlrmrEm, yaoadri-Bt'uvanagiri District, Telangana)' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF MANOAMUS for inaction of the Respondents 3 to 5, on the complaint daled 27 -O2-2O25 made by the Petitioner, is illegal, invalid and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents 3 to 5 to take action against Respondents 6 and 7 by registering a case u/s.324(2),324(3),329(3) and 351(2) of BNS 2023. !A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition tnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Fiign Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 3 to 5, to entertain the Complaint by registering the case u/s.324(2),324(3),329(3) and 351(2) of BNS 2023 against the Respondent No. 6 and 7 on the Complaint dt.27 -O2-2O25 made by the Petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. S. VIJAY PRASHANTH Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 and 7:-- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. LOEIT of 2O25 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 27 .O2.2025 are not initiating _action by registering the FIR against the unofficial respondents, which action ol the ofhcial respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Governmcnt 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 iis involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for llome appearing for the ofhcial respondents submit that t}Ie issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision o[ this Court in WP.No-7159 ol 2025 2 & batch, dt. 10.O3.2025, and the said common order would apply in all force to the fac[s of the present case. \

5. Recording the same, for reasons aiike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, uide W.p.Nos.7l59 of 2O2S & 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 ol 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, to rhis order. 7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if ar-ry, pending shall stand closed To, /TTRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \\'-*- u sEcTroN oFFrcER /-

1. The Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Cdmmissionerate, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Qommissioner of Police, Balanagar, Hyderabad. 4. The lnspector of Police, Balanagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 5. The Station House Officer, Balanagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 6. One CC to Sri S. Vijay Prashanth, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OU!

8. Two CD Copies TJ LS, (Along with the Copy of Order dated 10.03.2025, ln W.P.No.7159 of 2025 and batch) YY HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 ORDER WP.No.10817 of 2025 1 HBoo E 6 ( 0 5 I\|AY ?il6 \.-r .. -.i.___, Z:- ) -a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS l\ ,(94 ffr,e THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD I('MAR W.P.Nos. 7159 7176 72o5 72t4 anil 7329 of 2o25 COMMOIY 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 ollicial respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing fo. tt " respective parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of fts involved artd the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unollicial respondents in a.ll these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn 6f unnecessaq/ 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 t}re Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoflicia-l 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 official respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this 'Court in tlre case of Gotind Raju Sarrti Vs The State o! Telangana and. othersri that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal procedure, l9Z3 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 contrarSz to the d.icta laid down by the Hon,ble in the case of Sakiri Vas'u Vs Stalc oJ llttar Supreme Court Prad.eshz. 6 I have taken note of the respective contentions urged perused the record

7. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.2449 5 of 2O19, dt.2l.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and t2691 of 2O2O, dt.3t.Ot.2024, and also in W.P.N o.SZ++A of 2022 and W.p.No.38 392 of 2Ot9, having regard to the law laid doum by a three_judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subrama.nia;rr- and. Ors. Vs. S. Janaki and Ors3, wherein the dicta laid dor,rn by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case I zotg @t l'to llq '2008 (2) SCC 409 '(2020) r6 scc 728 3 of Sakiri Vasr b case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mand.amus cannot be issued drrecting the respondents- authorities to register an FlR/crime, even_t*rough the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence.

8. This Court, in W.p.No,S189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.37.Ot.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 complainalt 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 complainarrt has the further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by filing a private compiaint; and that on the Court being pima faae satisfied of the contents of the compraint disciosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.p.C./BNSS can direct the olficer_in_ charge of [he police station to conduct investigation a-nd 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 I I 4

10. In view ofthe above, and having regard to the position oflaw as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of the vrew that no direction to the respondents-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners' respectivel-v' can be issued.However'intheeventofthepetitionersbeingaggrievedbythe inactionoftherespondents-authoritiesinnotregtsteringtheir complaints, it is always open for the petiLioners to avail the remedy of filing a private complaint before the concerned Criminal Court'

11. Subject to the above observations, the Wnt Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs 72 As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. T. VINOD KUMAR, J loth March, 2025