The High Court · 2025

3. T. Srikanth Babu, S/o T. Ravi Kumar, aged about 49 years, Occ Business. Rl./o. H. No 18- 8- 254,7, Rakshapuram Colony, kanchanbagh, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary - Homg Department, Dr. B.-R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 J The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana State The Station House Officer, Chinthapally Police Station, Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...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 of the action of the respondents Nos 2 and 3 in not registering the FIR upon the Complaint Dated 1010712025 of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, apart from violative of Articles 14,21 and 300- A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct respondents Nos 2 and 3 to register the FIR upon the Complaint Dated 1O1O712025 of the petitioners. 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 mzry be pleased to direct respondents Nos 2 and 3 to register the FIR upon the Complaint Dated 1O1O712025 of the petitioners, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. RAMAVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No. 204s2ol2O25 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that, though they had approached the 3'd respondent authority and submitted a complaint dt.10.07.2025, no action is being taken thereon by the respondents by registering a crime against the persons mentioned in the aforesaid complaint, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal, in dereliction of duty and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 while denying the writ averments, would submit that the 3'd respondent authority on receiving the aforesaid complaint had made a GD entry and caused preliminary enquiry on

15.07.2025 and after causing preliminary enquiry, had closed the aforesaid complaint as'civil in nature'and issued intimation of the action taken by serving the same in person on 15.07.2025. 2

4. Learned Government pleader would further subn,it that despite the petitioners being served with the aforesaid intimation in person, suppressing the said fact, the present Writ petition is filed. 5 I have taken note of the respective contentions ur.ged.

6. Firstly, when this Court had queried with the counsel appearing for the petitioners as to maintainabirity of writ against rron-registration of crime, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brz raising his voice and in an intimidatory manner contend that the other Benches of this court have been entertaining writ petitions of this nature, and there is no reason why, this Court is refusing to pass orders granting issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the police to register a crime. F,urther, the above submission is made by the learned counsel for the petiti,)ners, despite this Court brining to the notice of learned counsel the Apex court decisions in sakiri vasu v/s. state of tlttar pradestl and M. s,bramaniam and Orc, v/s. S, -Tanaki and Od, and atso the decisiorr of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Govind Raju Sami Us The State of Telangana and otherc, which have been consistenfly foilowed by this court whire disposing of various matters directing the parties therein to avair remedies provided under Cr.p.C./BNSS, being a complete Code by itself. Simitar view has also been taken by Madhya pradesh High Court in Neetmani ' zottt r.u r scc +og ':(2020r to scai)R I2ol9 (4) ALD 114 Rajput v/s. State of MP and otheri and the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case Kaja Rama Rao v/s, State of Anclhn Pradesh and otherd.

7. Further, it is also to be noted that in terms of Section 173(4) ot BNSS, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents- authorities in registering crime based on their complaint, the petitioners have to avail further remedy provided thereunder by approaching the Superintendent of Police, who can cause investigation thereinto, if satisfied with the contents of the complaint. B. That apart, Section 175(3) of BNSS provides for further remedy oF approaching Magistrate by filing an affidavit for the Magistrate to take note of the contents of the complaint and direct further action.

9. Even though the above decisions and legal position being made known, the learned counsel for the petitioners insists that only this Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents-authorities to register the crime.

10. However, having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court that a Mandamus cannot be issued by the High Court, in exercise of extraordlnary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to o rtat'w/t.'tp/zoq!zq ' zoza 111nrr 1ca.;(A.P) s4 (s.8.) \ I !f!i 4 register a crime, except in rarest of rare cases, this ccurt is of the view that the conduct of the rearned counser for the petition:rs for addressing the Court in intimidatory manner and questioning as to why this Cout is not granting a rerief as was granted by the other Coorrrinate Benches of this Court, is not only contemptuous warranting initiatio I of action as per the Advocates Act, 1961, but also being contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, as noted hereinabove, which binds this Court under Artrcle 141 of the Constitution of India, no relieF can be granted.

11. As the petitioners having failed to avail other remedies provided under BNSS on being served with the intimation of the rction taken, this court is of the considered opinion that the present writ rretition as fired is devoid of merit, apart from having been filed by resortirrg to suppresslon of the petitioners being issued with the intimation of thr: action taken by the respondents-authorities on the complaint made by them,

12. Thus, the Writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this ra,rit petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S D/. AXE 5 BfiSTU hLtT'[HiH SECT oN OFFTCER To,

1. One CC to SRl. RAMAVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Advocate 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the Stat€ of Telangana [OUT] loPUCl /)/ 3. Two CD CoPies KKS HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 ' .,a--' ,lt :i .\ 10 SEP 2]6 ORDER WP.No.2O452 of 2025 t O5 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS D /z --.-:t!l- ,f 6 .i. i< ../ ICT - -t,' !