P. Satyanarayana Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances staied in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein. in not registering a crime or conducting any investigation against the 6th Respondent and his men and agents, in pursuance of the Written Complaints' d1.17t2t2o25, 241212025 and 221312025 submifted by the Writ Petitioner to the ,' Respondents 2 to 5 and acknowledged by the Respondents herein as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 5 to forthwith register a crime and take action against the 6th Respondent for the overtacts committed by him. 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 5 to forthwith register a crime and conduct thorough investigation into the overtacts committed by the 6th Respondent and his men and agents. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6:-- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T, VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 1 1 2Lot 2O25 ORDER: ' The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that basing on the complaints made by the petitioner on 17 '02'2025,

24.02.2025 and 22.03.2025, the respondents-authorities are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the person(s) named therein, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

2.HeardlearnedCounselforthepetitioner,thelearnedGovernment 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.Havingregardtothenatureof/sinvolvedintheWritPetitionand the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondentisnoLnecessaryforadjudicationofthepresentWritPetition.

4.Learnedcounselappearingonbehalfofpetitionerandlearned 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'10'03'2025' and 2 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 aforesaid Writ petitions, vide W.p.Nos.7l59 of 2O2S & dt.10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, the present Writ petition in the batch, is also disposed of. No order as to costs. 6 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ secnoru oFFlcER riat Buildings, The State District, Telangana State. of Telangana, Hyderabad. Mahes*aram Zone, Ranoa Reddy District' rr,iatrimoatnam Sub-Division, Ranga Reddy Distdct'

1. The PrinciPal Secretary, Home DePartment, Sec 2. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy s ih-e ii;ouiv C6mmissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate' -' 4. t'#'G;iidni commissioter of P'olice, Rqctpfgld.a commissionerate' " 5. ii;' di;ii;'-uo r."-om""t, Ma ncn"ala Po I ic-e Statio n' Rachako nd a o. On6 Ccio Srikdni MJrali Krishna, Advocate-[oPUQ] i: iil dCt to'cp rot Home, uign Court for the State of Telangana' at 8. Two CD CoPies Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad [OUT] To, TJ LS /: I HIGH COURT DATED:,1 610412025 ORDER WP.No.11321 of 2025

13.J 0 5 4irl I (r( -l r-rA o o o '+ t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ dq4 &" THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD XUMAR W.P.Nos.7159 7176 7205 7214 ar.d,7329 of 2O25 COMMON ORDER Since the grievarce 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 ollicia.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 malner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unollicial respondents in a.[ these writ petitions is not necessary 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 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., a:nd Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS') by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoflicial respondents, respectively, basing on tfe 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, t1.e petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of tJ.is Court under Arlticle 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the clecision of this Court in the case of Govind Raju Sarrri Vs The State of Telangana. 'o,nd othersl, that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provrded under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ot BNSS to seek redressal of their grievalce; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contraqr to t}:,e dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh2.

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

7. In sirnilar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2019, dt.21.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.31.01.2024, and a-lso 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. Subrrrmaniam and. Ors. Vs. S. Janaki and. Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ' 2ol9 (4) ALD t74 2oo8 (2) scc 409 ' (2020) l6 scc.?28 '7 3 of Sckiri yasu'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 frled indicates commission of an offence.

8. This Court, in w.P.No.SI89 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol.2O24 ' 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 '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 complainant has the further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court betng pima facie 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 abbve stated procedures envisage safety measures to ensure registration of a compiaint, 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 of the 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 Iodged 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 compiaints, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of hling a private complaint 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 sequei miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. T. VINOD KT'MAR, J 10,h March, 2025 9ra