Dismissed

Sri K.Gangadhara Shrama, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2024WP/15772/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition regarding non-registration of an FIR. The court held that alternative remedies under Cr.P.C. are available when the police fail to register an FIR based on a cognizable offence complaint, making the writ petition under Article 226 non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedy under Cr.P.C. No order as to costs.

Sri K.Gangadhara Shrama, Vs The state… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY .THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

B
,r

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15772 OF 2016

¶7

Between;

¶8

Sri K.Gangadhara Shrama,, S/o Venugopala Sharma Aged about 40 Years, Occ; Pandit, R/o Eashwerapuram village Mandal Puttur Mandal, District Chittoor

¶9

...PETITIONER AND

¶10

The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home

¶11

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police , Chittoor District

¶13

The Station House officer, Putthur Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in^the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 , 3 in not receiving for registering the complaint dated 05-02-2016 for providing protection to the lives of petitioner family members in their own village is arbitrary , illegal and gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to provide protection duly considering the complaint immediately and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 19487 OF 2016)

¶17

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 direct the respondents to provide protection duly considering the complaint dated 05-02-2016 immediately during the pendency or the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. DADI RADHA KRISHNA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010104122016

\ 1- ■»

0S0

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶25

[3310]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 15772/2016

¶31

Between:

¶32

Sri K.gangadhara Shrama

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.DADI RADHA KRISHNA

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

“ to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the^actionof the respondent Nos. 2, 3 in not receiving for registering the complaint dated.05.02.2016 for providing protection^tothelives of petitioner family members in their own village is^arbitrary, illegal and gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India consequently^direct the respondents to provide protection duly considering the complaint immediately and pass such other order or^ordersas this Honble court may deem ift and proper in the circumstance of the case ”

¶43

Heard Mr.Dadi Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents.

¶44

/ / i

¶45

On hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned^counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by a order of this Court in Writ Petition No.35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024.

¶46

In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of the above said order in Writ Petition No.35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024. However, if at all any grievance is still subsisting for the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition No.35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024, to this Order.

¶49

To,

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶52

SECTIOITOFFICER

¶53

One CC to SRI DADI RADHA KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶55

Three CD Copies

¶56

(Along with Copy of Order dated 07.03.2024 in WP. No. 35174 of 2017)

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.15772of2016

ITi
X 18 JAN 2025 .
^ . Current Section ^

¶63

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

IN THE HIGH COURT
:: AMARAVATI
SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH [ 3310 J
WO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶65

PRESENT

¶66

the honourable dr JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶67

WRITPETITIOW ]Mn. 35174 OF .oniy Between: Rayavarapu Srinivasulu S/o. Hariprasad Rao,

¶68

...PETITIONER(S)

¶69

AND SECRETARY ANI^OTH^s^^^^^^ PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶70

Counsel for the Petitione r(s):SRI. N V R AMARNATH Counsel for the Respondents: : GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶71

This writ petition i IS filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring the action of the Srd respondent in not registering the FIR basing on the complaints made by the petitioner dated 05. 10.2017, 09.10.2017 and 16.10.2017, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the resident of Srinagar, Guntur Town and by running a cloth shop at 12/1 of Arundalpet and eaking his livelihood, One person namely Kotireddy is known to the petitioner and he introduced the 4th respondent and he came to his shop regularly and informed that he is constructing the apartments at Ponnuru and he is giving partnership in the said apartment and obtained Rs.26,50,000/- Due to illegal acts of the 4 th respondent the petitioner made a complaint before the Ponnur P-S. and the Ponnur Police informed that the said complaint i IS not come under their jurisdiction to file a complaint before

¶72

¶73

the 3rd respondent and on 9.10.2017 the petitioner^{madeanothercomplaint} before the 3rd respondent but the 3rd respondent has^{nottakenanyaction} so far. Later, the petitioner made another complaint before^{the2ndrespondent} complaining the acts ofhte3erd respondent. But in vain. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶74

None appeared for the petitioner. 4. Heard Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶75

On perusing the affidavit filed in support of the^{writpetition,itis} observed that, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents NO.2 and 3 to register the crime against^{therespondentNo.4,} they have not taken action so far.

¶76

On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader^forHomewhile relying on the decisions of this Court passed in W.P.No.^14324of2020& batch, W.P. No.8384 of 2020 & batch and also a decision of a Division Bench this Court passed in W.A.No.l04 of 2022, submits^{that,intheabove} judgments it was held that the writ petitions, in view^{oftheavailabilityof} efficacious and alternative remedy, were not maintainable^{anddirectedthe} petitioners to avail the alternative remedy, if they were so advised. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prayed^{todismissthewrit} petition and issue a direction to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

¶77

In a case of Lalita Kumari V. State of Uttar Pradesh wherein the Apex Court held that a duty is caste upon the concerned police to register FIR and investigate the same if the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The truancy exhibited by the respondent police necessitated them to seek writ jurisdiction^ofthisCourt. 8. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this High Court. Now it is well^{settledlawthatwhen} police failed to register the F.I.R. based on the report lodged by any individual disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200^ofCr.P.C.

¶78

Considering the earlier judgments of the Apex Court^renderedon the same issue, this Court in a batch of writ petitions, disposed of on 30.07.2020 in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch, held that when police failed to register F.I.R. based on the report lodged with them, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies contemplated^underCr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable.

¶79

AIR 2012 SC 1515 + MANU/SC/0157/2012

¶80

In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari’s case (supra 1) and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶81

In view of the above legal position, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶82

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy provided in Cr.P.C., if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶83

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶84

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶85

Gvl

Sri K.Gangadhara Shrama, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K.Gangadhara Shrama, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mohammad Vasima Fathima, Vizianagaram Dist Vs Prl Secy, Dept. of Home, Hyderabad and 5 Others

Shaik Khader Basha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Noorullah Hussain alias Noor Baba, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Raghu Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Duvvi Pushpa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Rahul Kumar Jain Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its