ltrl.E.V. Prasada Rao v. 1. The State of Telangana

6. MR. R.R.V.L. Vara Prasad, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o. LIGH-I,Type 57 and 58, Uday Nagar B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction, or writ more so in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.5 in not registering FIR against the respondent No.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 42O and 506 IPC as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and Article 14,21 ot the Constitution of lndia and violation of the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure and guidelines of I I I i I i I l I I I I I I _-F c4r€:e{,tf,aj "-:_-,__,5r 7 ,/ Hon'ble Supreme Court, and consequently direct the respo dent 5 to take steps on the complaint dated 24.4.2017 given by petitioner a1; inst the respondent N o.6. l.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:25 953 0F 2017) Petition Under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the cit ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Cot t may be pleased to direct the respondent 5 to register FIR against the resp rndent No 6 for the offences under Sections 406, 419, 420 & 506 IPC and to p3;s appropriate orders in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : SRI R.LAXMIKAiI 'H REDDY' AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : -- The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 2 1113 0F 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the foilowing relief: "....to tlrant an. ord'er, direction' or tuit rnrtre so in the noture of -rit oi Mondomus, ieclainq the actiort oi the respondent Net 5 in n.o,t reqtstennq FIR aqainst the respondent No 6 lbr the oSJnr-.nt punishabte uncler Sections 406' 119, 120 an c1 506 IPC as being illeqal, arbitraru and uiolotiue of pinctples of natural Trttir" inri iai, ptatl onrl Ani"t. 14, 21 of the Constitutiort of 'Inclia and uioLation of the procedure latd rloun under t'he Oode of Cnminot Procedure and quidelines of Hon, ble Supreme Court, and conseqtientl.4 direct the respondent 5 to toke steps clated 24.4'2017 gitten bg petitioner ogcLirist ni ti" tl-te respondent No.6 and pass.-." "o,nploint

2. None appeared for the petitioner'

3. Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos' 1 to 5' 8,. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner's complaint d,ated' 29 04'2O17 was duly received' registered, and subjected to a preliminary enquiry' The enquiry reveaied that the allegations were purely ciuil in nature' and accordingly, the matter was closed' Hence, the contention of the petitioner stands unfounded. .S- I have perused the material on record' ! i 2 6, The petitioner contends that no FlR/crime r,r.i s registered on the basis of his representation. However, the subr r ;sions made by the learned Assistant Government Pieader demo: ;trate that the Police had, in fact, acted upon the complaint, condrL, ted an enquiry, and addressed the matter in accordance with aw. Thus, the assertion of the petitioner is not supported l Nonetheiess, if the petitioner continued to feel a5 1' the record. grieved, it vvas incumbent upon him to pursue appropriate rem: lies before the higher police authorities or approach the Jurisdict,< na1 Magistrate. Without exhausting rhese statLrtory remedies, seet from this Court for registration of a crime i s Lng a direction impermissible, particularly in light of the settled lega1 position tha r a complainant must first avail remedies provided under the Crr le of Criminal Procedure before ini.oking the extraordinary jur-is liction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Therefore, while the petitioner's grievance egarding non- registration of a crime has been addressed by the pr> ice authorities, if he remains dissatished with their action, he is ;ound to seek redressal through the effective alternative remedies ,:r,aiiable under the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS. Invol ing the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitutior without hrsf exhausting such alternative remedies runs contrz $r to the iaw l ) consistentiy laid clown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court The legal position governing such matters is well settled and in Sakiti Vasu v. State of U.P. 6u Others (AIR 2OO8 SC 907)1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First -lnformation Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Artrcle 226 is ordinariiy not available. The Ctrurt emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances' This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent g. ludicial pronouncements Most notably, in M' Subramaniam v' S' Janaki & Others (AIR 2O2O SC 387)2, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for al aggrievecl party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr'P C ' including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 20O Cr.P.C. rather than directly invokiqg the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. q. In view of the settled legal principies, arrd in the absence of any exceptionai circumstances warranting interference, the contention of the petitioner is held to be not maintainable' ' AIR 2oo8 sc ao7 ' AIR 2o2o sc 387 4 Nevertheless, the petitloner is at liberty to avail s;r:ch appropriate remedies as are available to him in law, should thr: cause of action stiil subsist lU. Accordingly, and in light of the above liberty, Lis Writ Pctirion stands dismissed. There shali be no order as to costs Miscellaleous Petitions, pending if any, shall s and closed. Sd/-AFlI IED ABDULLA KHAN ,rnt;'' tSTaNt -BEGTSTRAR //rRUE coPY// \r \ --- sEcrloN oFFlcER To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the \:1tB r ITelangana at Hvderabad. IOUTI 2. Ohe CC to SRI P H 3. Two CD CoPies EMACHANDRA, Advocate [OPUC ] SA PMK HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 I ORDER WP.No.21113 of 2017 :, =:::-. (t' {ic s!l \r/-. o [ [ fEB zirAii C) * r) t ---:',.--.. - I I -t DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. K5 trl,lte