Dismissed

Tirumalasetty Padma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Apr 2024WP/28482/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses the maintainability of a writ petition filed against police inaction. The court held that filing a writ is not the appropriate remedy when police fail to register an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence; instead, the aggrieved party must exhaust alternative remedies under the Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Tirumalasetty Padma, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 28482 OF 2016

¶5

Between:

¶6

Tirumalasetty Padma, W/o Muralikrishna, aged about^{42years,R/oYanadi} Colony. Tadepalli, Guntur District

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary,Home} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban, Guntur,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶11

The Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station,^{Tadepalli,Guntur} District

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatin} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of^{the3^'^respondentin} not receiving the complaint lodged by petitioner dt. 3-08-2016 and not registering a crime basing on the complaint and not^{investigatingintothe}

¶14

is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental^principles enshrined in the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to receive the complaint given by the petitioner^dt.3-08-2016 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'^{blecourtmaydeemfit} and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 35267 OF 2016)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to receive and^{registerthecomplaint} dt. 3-08-2016 submitted by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order or orders^{asthisHon'bleCourt} may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the^case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. N V R AMARNATH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

APHC010125112016

¶21

Sri'S s?:y

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

[3310]

¶25

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28482/2016

¶28

Between:

¶29

Tirumalasetty Padma ...PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1. N V R AMARNATH

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GPFOR HOME(AP)

¶34

The Court made the following: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondent in not taking any action on the complaints made by the petitioner and not registering the complaints, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

None appeared for the petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appeared for the official respondents.

¶36

On hearing, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the issue involved in this

¶37

is squarely covered by a order of this Court m Writ Petitioit^^ petition No 35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024.

¶38

learned Assistant

¶39

made by the

¶40

of the submissions

¶41

1. In view is also disposed of , this Writ Petition is

¶42

Pleader for Home

¶43

Government 35174 of 2017,

¶44

in Writ Petition No

¶45

of the above said order m

¶46

in terms is still subsisting , if at all,dny grievance

¶47

dated 07.03.2024. However proceed further, in

¶48

is at liberty to

¶49

for the petitioner, the petitioner with law.

¶50

accordance

¶51

, if any, shall

¶52

applications pending

¶53

1. As a sequel, miscellaneous stand closed. Writ

¶54

of the Order in

¶55

attach a copy

¶56

is directed to

¶57

1. Registry this Order.

¶58

, dated 07.03.2024, to

¶59

Petition No.35174 of 2017 SD/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶60

//TRUE COPY// Mh ^ SECTION OFFICER

¶61

\ To, Secretariat, Velagapudi,

¶62

1 , The Principal Secretary, Home Department Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶63

Guntur, Guntur District

¶64

of Police, Guntur Urban

¶65

1. The Superintendent

¶66

Officer, Tadepalli Police Station. Tadepalli, Guntur

¶67

1. The Station House District

¶68

Amarnath, Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

1. One CC to Sri N V R

¶70

Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶71

home (AP) ,High Court

¶72

5, Two CCs to GP for 6. Three CD Copies

¶73

sree

¶74

HIGH COURT DATED: 16/04/2024

¶75

ORDER

¶76

WP.No.28482 of 2016

¶77

m
s_ 12 DEC 207‘| eoj
i°espATCW^«S

¶78

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶79

APHC010855052017

¶80

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310 1 THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶81

PRESENT

¶82

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 35174 OF 2017

¶83

Between; Rayavarapu Srinivasulu, S/o. Hariprasad Rao, ...PETITIONER(S)

¶84

AND

¶85

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶86

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. N V R AMARNATH

¶87

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶88

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶89

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndiafor} declaring the action of the respondent in not registering the FIR basing on the complaints made by the petitioner dated 05.10.2017,^{09.10.2017and} 16.10.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶90

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 4^^ 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'^ respondent the petitioner made a complaint before the Ponnur P.S. and the Ponnur Police^{informedthatthe} said complaint is not come under their jurisdiction to file a complaint before

¶91

the 3''d respondent and on 9.10.2017 the petitioner^{madeanothercomplaint} before thd 3’^^ respondent but the 3'’^ respondent^{hasnottakenanyactionso} far. Later, the petitioner made another complaint before^{the2"'^respondent} complaining the acts ofhte3erd respondent. But in vain. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶92

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

¶93

On perusing the affidavit filed in support of the^{writpetition,} it is 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.

¶94

On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader^forHomewhile relying on the decisions of this Court passed in W.P.No.¹⁴³²⁴ of 2020 8& 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 direction to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

¶95

In a case of Lalita Kumari V. State of Uttar Pradesh i, 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.

¶96

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.

¶97

AIR 2012 SC I515 + MANU/SC/0157/2012

¶98

In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly^explained the distiri’ction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha^{Kumariscase(supra} 1) and the cases of like nature and clearly held that^{thewritpetitionisnot} maintainable.

¶99

In view of the above legal position, this Court^{isnotinclinedto} entertain this writ petition and the same is liable^{tobedismissed.}

¶100

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

¶101

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any^{pending,shallstand}

¶102

closed.

¶103

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶104

Gvl

Tirumalasetty Padma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirumalasetty Padma, 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

Dr. P.v.P.Sai Arun, Vs The Station House Officer

M.Khadharun Bee at Muni D/o. Wahed Vali, Vs Rushikesh, Circle Inspector of Police, Mulakacheruvu Circle

Vallurupalli Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chennareddigari Janardhan Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kocherla Chiranjeevi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh