Kattekola Narasimha Rao v. 1. The Station House Officer

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction rnore particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandarus 6y declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents_ in registering FIR against the Respondent No.6 even after receiving written co-mplainti from the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14 and 30o R oi the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to register FIR and investigate into the affairs of Respondent No.6 with regard to thE encroachments, selling of 3rd party lands, Fabricating fake documents and fraud etc., and pass such other order or orders as this Honble court may deems necessary and proper in the circumstances of the case' l.A. NO: t OtF 2O17(WPMP. NO: 26076 OF 2017) 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 Respondents No.1 to 5 to register FIR against the.Respondent No.6 based on th,: complaints of the Petitioner, and pass strch other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deems necessary and proper in the circumstarices of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt GOPALA RAO AMANCHARLA V Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 4: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No 6: ---- The Court rnade the fottowing: ORDER THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JT'STICE N.TUITARAMJI ORDER: This Writ Petition is frled under Article 226 of Crcnstitution of India seeking the following relief: "....to issue anvwrit" orderordirection rnore panicularlyorre inthe ryq* the part ot the of rVrit of lvlandamts by declaring the inaction -on ;p9Td.;; in registering-FlR-againsl t\ Y:p"n&nt No'6 even after recervmg *ri*n tmptfoq frJm the Petitioner ,t il.4, "f@; violadve" of Article ta and 3oGA of the constitution of Indta and .o*"q*"tly;;;; the Responden* to register FIR and invqsdgate into n r*i"d.* No.e *ittr rcgard t *,::*pachnrcnts selling of fie affain "f Fpr,y 1r"dr, it"U"L".i"g fale_doc'rients and fiaud erc., and pass such c-oun deems necessary and proper in the other order ". "oa.o "r circumsances of the case..." "attr

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leamed Assisant Government Pleader for Flome appearing for respondent Nos.l ta 4.

3. kamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that' in spite of representadon dated 08.06.20 !7, the resPondent-police authorities failed to rcgister FIR against respondent No'6 on the cornplaint rnade bythe petitioner, thus, the present petition is filed .seeking aPProPriate direction- 2

4. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Home submits that the petitioner,s complaint dated 0g.O6.2O17 was duly received, registered, and subjected to a prelimin6r, enqurry. The enquiry revealed that tJ e allegations were purely ejuil in nature, and, accordingly, the matter was closed. Hence, the contention of the petitioner stands unfounded.

5. I have perused the material on record.

6. Th': petitioner contends tlrat no FlRlcrime was registered on the basis; of his representati,on. However, the submissions made by the leanred Assistant Government pleader demonstrate that the Police had, in fact, acted upon the complaint, conducted an enquiry, and addressed the matter in accordance with law. Thus, the assertion of the petitioner by the record. Nonetheless, if the petitioner continued to feel aggrieved, it was incumberet upon him to pursue appropriate remedies before the higher police authorities or approach the Jurisdicfional Magistrate. Wittrout exhausting these statutory remedies, seeking a direction from this Court for registration of a crime is impermissible, particularly in light of tl,e setfled legal position that a comprainant must fir!;t avail remedies provided under the code of criminal rs not supported 3 Frocedure before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of.the Constitution of India'

7. Therefore, while the petitioner's grievance regarding non- registration of a crime has been addressed by the police authorities' if he remains dissatisfied with their action, he is bound to seek redressal through the effective alternative remedies available under theCodeofcriEinalProcedure/BNSS.Invokingthewrit jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without first e:<hausting such alternative remed'ies runs contrar5r to the law consistently taid down by the Honble Supreme Court' The legal position governing such matters is well settled and in Saklri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2OO8 SC 9OZ)r' the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of tJre police to register an First Information Report (FIR|, the remedy of approaching the High Court under Arncle 226 is ondinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr'P'C'") provides an adequate and ellicacious statutory framework to address such grievances' Ttris principle has been consistently realfrrmed in subsequent v- 8- judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M' Subramaniam I AtR.zmt sc ao7 \ , I 4 S. Janakt & @thers II.JIR 2O2,O SC gBA2, a three_Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieveri party is to avail the r.emedies provided under the Cr.p.C., includi4g approaching tJ:e Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.t,.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

9. In view of ttre setfled legal any ex:eptional circumstances contention of the principles, and in the absence of . warranting interference, the Nevertheless, the petitioner is at Iiberty to avail such appropriate remedies as are available to him in law, should dre cause of action still subs,ist. lO. Acr:ordingly, and in light of the above liberty, this Writ petition stands di:sraissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Misrcellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. AI.R zc,:,o tt *a SD'- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. bne CC to SRt GOPALA RAO AMANCHARLA V Advocate tOpUCI 2. Two CCs to AGP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyd,arabad. [OUTI

3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderaba-d. [OUTI

4. Two CD Copies P t(q. D.N HIGH COURT 24tO9t2025 ORDEFI () C) ? 0 JAll 2026 I . WP.No,21205 ot 2017 * i,,ir( DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION ASSISTANT NOT NABLE WTHOUT COSTS @* o.\da