The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in failing to take appropriate action in registering a First lnformation Report on petitioner complaint dated, 11.08.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, Unconstitutional, abdication of duty cast on them and violative of Article 14,,1g and 21 of the Constitution of lndia apart from being contrary to the scheme envisage under Section 30 and 173 of BNSS and clear violation of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Vinod Kumar Pandey and Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini and Ors., (2025 INSC 1095) and consequenfly to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 forthwith to take action and register the FIR against un- official respondents in pursuance of the petitioner complaint dated, ,l 1.08.2025. 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 official respondents to consider the petitioner complaint dated 11.08.2025 in terms of Section 30 and 173 of BNSS and the Judgment passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, and Vinod Kumar pandey and Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini and Ors., (2025 INSC 1095) in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAYUR REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI BOTTA PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l TO 3 & 13: cP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 12: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR UIRIT No-31 945 of 2O2S ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3. 'with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the official respondents in failing to take appropriate action in registering F.I.R on the complaint of the petitioner dated ll.o1.2o25 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, abdication of duty cast on them and. violative of Article 14, 19 and 2l of the Constitution of India apart from being contrar5r to the scheme envisaged under sections 30 and 173 of BNSS and clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon,ble supreme court of India in Lalitha Kumar vs. state of uttar Pradeshr and vinod Kumar Pandey & another vs. seesh Ram saini & others2 and seeking a consequential relief to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 forthwith to take action and register the F.I.R against the un-official reppondents in pursuance of the petitioner complaint dated

11.08.2025. Sri Ma5rur Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the station House officer, Bachannapet porice station on 1l.o8.2o25. The subject matter of the complaint pertains to multiple t 1zott1 2 scc I 'lzozs INsc lo95) 2 sale deeds which were executed on the-same land and a complaint was made to that extent and no action has been taken by the respondenl- authorities on the complaint dated tL.O8.2O25 till date.

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for Home placed the instructions submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bachannapet Police Station wherein it is submitted that petitioner sent a complaint dated rL.o9.2o25 through post, which was received by the respondent No.3 on 16.08.2025 stating that the respondent Nos.4 to 12 cheated damaged the property with criminal intimidation and made false statements. Pursuant to the said complaint, G.D entry was made, however the petitioner did not approach the police station. Later, respondent No.3 conducted enquiry and revealed that the place of offence does not come within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 but the place of offence is at Rampally village which falls under Keesra Mandal jurisdiction, hence respondent No.3 advised the petitioner to approach Station House officer, Keesara Police station, Rachakonda Commissionerate for rbdressal of his grievance. In this connection, a' letter dated 29.08.2025 has been addressed to the petitioner through post on o4.o9.2o25. Learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the respondent No.3 has acted upon the complaint and the = petitioner did not approach the police station for preliminary enquiry.

4. Learned senior counsel on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction relied upon the judgement of the Honble supreme court in criminal Appeal No.1o3l of 1999, the relevant portion is extracted as under: 3 '9' This would be clear from the folrowing discussion. section 156 of the criminal Procedure code empowers the porice officer to investigate any cognizable offence. It reads as under : " 156. Police Offrcer's power to investigate cognizable case : _ (1) Any oflicer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizabre case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station wourd have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case sha, at €rny stAge be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any l1'{agistrate empowered under Section r90 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. " 10' It is true that territoriar jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub-section (1) to the extent that the oflicer can investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the rocal area within the limits of such porice station wourd have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of chapter XIII. However, sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing that no proceeding of a porice officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such oflicer was not empowered to investigate. After investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under sections 168, 169 and l7O. Section 170 specifica,lly provides that if, upon an investigation, it appears to the officer in charge of the porice station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justis the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such ofrrcer shalr, forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance ofthe offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. Further, if the Investigating officer arrives at the conclusion tl.at the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then F.I.R. can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed' But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the porice oflicer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it." I I ; I I 4

4.1. The learned senior counsel further relied on a decision of Honble Su.preme Court between Sindhu Janak Nagargoje V. State of Maharashtra and others3 wherein it is held as under: "ln view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of "Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.," reported in (201a) 2 SCC l, we are of the opinion that the registration of FIR is mandirtory under Section 154 of CrPC, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence. We may reiterate summary of law stated therein: - "120. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: L2O.l. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable oflfence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. l2O-2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offenct: but indicates the necessit5r for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIIi must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It mus,t disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4 'Ihe police oflicer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5 'fhe scope of preliminar5r inquiry is not to veri$r the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 12O.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes 3 2023 SCC Online SC 1833 5 (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corn:ption cases (e) Cases where tlere is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrartt preliminaqr inquiry.

120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminar5r inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminar5r inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above." \ \

5. In the light of the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court cited supra, since the complaint of the petitioner was lodged before the Station House Officer, Bachannapet Police Station/respondent No.3 on 11.08.2025, the respondent authorities ought to have taken immediate steps on the said complaint.

6. In the background of the above facts and circumstances and while taking into account the judicial pronouncements as cited supra, this writ petition is disposed of with consent directing the respondent No.3 to forward the complaint dated 17.08.2025 to the Station House Officer, Keesara, Rachakonda Commissionerate to proceed further with the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. As 6 submitted by both the learned counsel that Keesara Police Station comes under the jurisdiction of Rachakonda Commissionerate, this court suo-moto impleads the commissioner, Rachakonda Commissionerate as party respondent to this writ petition to supervise the status of the complaint dated L1.O8.2O25 and implement the orders of this Court and ensure that the Station House Officer concerned shall follow due procedure as contemplated under law for further course of action.

7. Registry is directed to carry out necessarJr amendments and is directed to communicate this Order to the Commissioner, Rachakonda Commissionerate to take appropriate steps on the complaint of the petitioner dated 1 L.O8.2025. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed- SD'. P.PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER at Building, Hyderabad, ,/TRUE COPY// To 2 3 4 5 6 7 PSK. LS.

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, S State of Telangana. The Commissi-oner of Police, Warangal Police Commisisonerate Hanamkonda, Telangana 506001 The Station House O;fficer, Bachhanpet Police Station Bachannapet-506221. The Commissioner, Rachakonda Commissionerate. One CC to SRI BOTTA PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies \l)- HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.31945 of 2025 coR lHE S 14 (J 10 0E[ ?fi "i -^O.-.-n rtf.'1,) -*:-:-::.-;:l - DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (+ \s $./