Disposed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Apr 2024WP/43800/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition relying on a binding decision in W.P. No. 35174 of 2017. The Court held that seeking an FIR registration via writ is not maintainable and directed closure of connected inter-lo-cutory applications pending in the matter.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by terms similar to the referenced order in W.P. No. 35174 of 2017, and miscellaneous applications stood closed.

M.Khadharun Bee at Muni D/o. Wahed… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 43800 OF 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.Khadharun Bee @ Muni D/o. Wahed Vali, Occ: Self employee Kosuvaripalli Village, Thamballapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Rushikesh, Circle Inspector of Police, Mulakacheruvu Circle, Mulakacheruvu - 517 390 Chittoor District.

¶11

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madanapalli - 517 325, Chittoor District.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, CTR Market, Chittoor -, 517 101.

¶13

Department of Home Department, AP Secretariat Office, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522 503 Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶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 an appropriate writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (l)declare the action of the Respondent No.1 conspired against the victim, willfully did not allow to submit / depose minority Muslim woman complaints in the Police Station, refused till date, causing apprehension, under SHC control Inspector of Police and others in writing fake report submitted to the officials. High Court and others alleged that the petitioner is mad, galata person in the village, litigant manner for refuse reject all petitioner complaints till date is bad in law, violation of Government Official Powers, (2)treated the petitioner is victim in rape; committed thrift property documents case also important to this Hon'ble Court provide a chance to the victim in person will depose in the Court, extend maximum help and justice^{thisHon’bleCourt} have rights and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of petitioner complaints dated.03-10-2017 and 28- 11-2017 submit report the same to this Hon'ble Court.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 54292 OF 2017)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of petitioner complaints dated.03-10-2017 and 28-11-2017.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Between:

¶20

M.Khadharun Bee @ Muni D/o. Wahed Vali, Occ: Self employee Kosuvaripalli Village, Thamballapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶21

...PETITIONER

¶22

AND

¶23

Rushikesh, Circle Inspector of Police, Mulakacheruvu Circle, Mulakacheruvu - 517 390 Chittoor District.

¶24

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madanapalli - 517 325, Chittoor District.

¶25

The Superintendent of Police, CTR Market, Chittoor -, 517 101.

¶26

Department of Home Department, AP Secretariat Office, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522 503 Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Central Bureau of investigation. Rep. by its Director, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, India.

¶29

...PRPOSED IMPLEAD PARTY RESPONDENT No.5

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 to conduct enquiry on petitioners complaints dt. 03.10.2017, 28.11.2017 and 18.07.2018.

¶31

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶32

Between:

¶33

M.Khadharun Bee @ Muni D/o. Wahed Vali, Occ; Self employee Kosuvaripalli Village, Thamballapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

Rushikesh, Circle Inspector of Police, Mulakacheruvu Circle, Mulakacheruvu - 517 390 Chittoor District.

¶37

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madanapalli - 517 325, Chittoor District.

¶38

The Superintendent of Police, CTR Market, Chittoor^-,517101. 4. Department of Home Department, AP Secretariat Office,^{APSecretariat,} Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522 503 Rep. by its Principal^Secretary.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

Central Bureau of investigation. Rep. by its Director,^{LodhiRoad,NewDelhi,} India.

¶41

...PRPOSED IMPLEAD PARTY RESPONDENT No.5

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the^HighCourt may^bepleasedto pass appropriate orders and to implead the CBI Director,^{LodhiRoad,NewDelhi} as 5th respondent in WP.no. 43800/2017 and all its^{Miscellaneousapplications.}

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. SULTANA SHAiK

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶45

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶46

APHC010967702017

¶47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶48

AT AIVIARAVATI

¶49

[3310]

¶50

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶51

THURSDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TVA/ENTY FOUR

¶52

PRESENT

¶53

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO: 43800/2017

¶55

Between:

¶56

M.khadharun Bee @ Muni D/o. Wahed Vali, ...PETITIONER

¶57

AND

¶58

Rushikesh Circle Inspector Of Police Muiakacheruvu ...RESPONDENT(S) Circle and Others

¶59

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶60

1.SULTANA SHAIK

¶61

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶62

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶63

The Court made the following Order:

¶64

This writ petition is filed under article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶65

"... to declare the action of the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor to implement the Hon’ble High court Q. No. 6886 of 2017 in PLP NO. 150 of 2017 till date^isbadin law, violation of High Court orders liable under contempt^of court order and consequently direct the Superintendent^of Police, Chittoor himself on or before one month consider^and dispose of the petitioner complaint dated 03.10.2017^and representation dated 28.11.2017 by record the writ^petitioner and her witness statements in detail take action, else this Hon’ble High Court be please record the writ petitioner^and her witness statements in detaii, take action and pass^such other order...”

¶66

¶67

Heard Smt. Sultana Shaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents.

¶68

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^of2017,dated 07.03.2024. 4. In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in^{termsoftheabove} 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^withlaw.

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

//TRUE COPY//

¶72

Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT^ REGISTRAR

¶73

SEGTtON OFFICER

¶74

To,

¶75

The Circle Inspector of Police, Rushikesh, Mulakacheruvu^Circle, Mulakacheruvu - 517 390 Chittoor District.

¶76

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madanapalli^{-517325,ChittoorDistrict.}

¶77

The Superintendent of Police, CTR Market, Chittoor-,^517101.

¶78

The Principal Secretary Department of Home Department,^{APSecretariat} Office, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District^-522503.

¶79

One CC to Smt. Sultana Shaik, Advocate [OPUC]

¶80

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶81

Three C.D. Copies.

¶82

(Along with copy of the order dated.07.03.2024 inW.P.^{No.35174of2017} enclosed herewith)*

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.43800 of 2017

iGCoph>

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

APHC010855052017

¶92

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

¶93

[3310]

¶94

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

¶95

PRESENT

¶96

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶97

WRIT PETITION NO: 35174 OF 2017

¶98

Between:

¶99

Rayavarapu Srinivasulu, S/o. Hariprasad Rao,

¶100

...PETITIONER(S)

¶101

AND

¶102

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶103

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶104

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

¶105

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶106

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶107

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.

¶108

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

¶109

the respondent and on 9.10.2017 the petitioner made another complaint before the 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.

¶110

None appeared for the petitioner.

¶111

Heard Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶112

On perusing the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is observed that, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents NO.2 and 3 to register the crime against the respondent No.4, they have not taken action so far.

¶113

On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader^forHomewhile relying on the decisions of this Court passed in W.P.No.¹⁴³²⁴ of 2020 & 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, in the above judgments it was held that the writ petitions, in view of the availability of 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.

¶114

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,^{hisremedyisnot} by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226^{oftheConstitutionofIndia,} 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.

¶115

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,whichdiscloses} commission of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution^{ofIndia,butonly} 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.

¶116

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

¶117

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

¶118

. • 11. 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.

¶119

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.

¶120

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

¶121

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶122

Gvl

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunkara Bhaskara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.J. Aslam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.N. Bala Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vallurupalli Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gada Venkata Subbarao Vs The State of Andhra Prasesh

Chakali Venkateswaramma Vs The Superintendent of Police