The Court disposed of the present Writ Petition in terms of a previous order in W.P. No. 35174 of 2017. The earlier decision held that when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the remedy lies under CrPC (Sections 154, 156, 190), and a writ petition under Article 226 for directing FIR registration is not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR •
p si
y
PRESENT K.
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K IMANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 22396 OF 9niR
Between:
S.J. Aslam, S/o Jabbar Saheb, aged 48 years, Occ; Business, H.No. 25-46 Bandanettu Street, Punganur Town & Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.
...Petitioner
AND
Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.
Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.
(R3 as per Court Permission)
...Respondents
Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more fully one in the nature of
r I Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent herein in not [egistering the complaint dated 09-06-2016 of the petitioner herein as illegal, void and capricious and consequently direct the 2"^ respondent to 'i# register the crime forthwith considering the aforesaid complaint dated 09• 06-2016 of the petitioner
LA. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 27539 OF 201 fi)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2"^ respondent herein to consider and dispose of the complaint dated 09-06-2016 of the petitioner herein pending disposal of the above WP No. of 2016.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
SRI GADE VENKATESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 2: GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: - - -
The Court made the following ORDER:
( (
APHC010466732016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 22396/2016
Between:
S.j. Aslam,
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
...RESPONDENT(S)
1 .GADE VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following Order:
This writ petition is filed declaring the inaction of the 2^^ respondent in not registering the complaint dated 09.06.2016 of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.
On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader forHomeon submits that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint
- On instructions.
in the police station, so that the respondent police not taken any action. He further submits that the petitioner’s counsel passed away long back. But so far, the petitioner not engaged anynewcounselto prosecute the matter. He further submits 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.
- As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
- Registry is directed to attach a copy of the OrderinWritPetition No.35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024, to this Order.
SDI- P. VINOD KUMAR //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /l/2r-
To,
SECTION OFFICER
/
I
/
[OPUC]
NPC - AF Section
HIGH COURT
DATED;03/04/2024
ORDER
WP.No.22396 of 2016
X 2 5 OCT 202'! COm
^O Current Section
%^LpeSPATCV^^^^
DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
APHC010855052017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 35174 OF 2017
Between:
Rayavarapu Srinivasulu, S/o. Hariprasad Rao, ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. N V R AMARNATH
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following: ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitutionofIndiafor declaring the action of the respondent in not registeringtheFIRbasing on the complaints made by the petitioner dated 05.10.2017,09.10.2017and 16.10.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.
the respondent and on 9.10.2017 the petitioner made another complaint before the 3'"^ respondent but the respondent has not taken any action so far. Later, the petitioner made another complaint before the 2^^ respondent complaining the acts ofhteSerd respondent. But in vain. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
AIR 2012 SC 1515 + MANIJ/SC/0157/2012
- 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.
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Gvl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the aggrieved person should approach Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for directing the Police to register an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence or should he avai
Whether a writ petition seeking direction to the police to register an FIR based on allegations of commission of a cognizable offence is maintainable?
S.J. Aslam
State of Andhra Pradesh
Station House Officer, Punganur Police Station
Sri Mohammed Saleem
K. Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
