In WP 45360 of 2017, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the petition relying on W.P. No. 35174 of 2017 dated 07.03.2024, which held writ petitions seeking FIR registration not maintainable when alternative Cr.P.C. remedies exist.
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
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 45360 OF 2017
Between:
Sunkara Bhaskara Rao, Occ Business, Managing Director,M/sDeviSai Constructions and Developers, R/o. Door No.27-4-71/2, Thanuj a Residency, Karnavaripalem, Visakhapatnam - 26, Andhra Pradesh State.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
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 pleaded to issue a writ or order or direction, more preferably in the nature ^of.'Writ dt Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to 4.in not acting on the representation of the petitionerdated11-11-2017as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violativeofArticles 14 and 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of Principles of natural justice, principles of promissory estoppels and doctrine of legitimate expectation and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to register cases against respondents 5 to 9 for the serious offices including threatening to life , cheating etc. while providing police protection to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
iANO: 1 OF 2017
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 respondents 2 to 4 herein to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 11-11-2017 within a specified period while directing the respondents 2 to 4 to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PARAVASTU KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondents no 1& 2 : GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
APHC011048742017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
WEDNESDAY .THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 45360/2017
Between:
Sunkara Bhaskara Rao
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.PARAVASTU KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following Order:
The present writ petition is filed for the followingrelief:
"....to issue a writ or order or direction more preferablyin the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inactionon the part of the respondents 2 to 4 in not acting onthe representation of the petitioner dated 11.11.2017 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles14 and 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also violative of Principles of natural justice principles of promissory estoppels and doctrine of legitimate expectation and consequently direct the respondents2to 4 herein to register cases against respondents 5 to9for the serious offices including threatening to life cheatingetc while providing police protection to the petitionerinthe interest of justice..."
2
- No representation for the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home.
- On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the 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.
Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
1 One CC to SRI. PARAVASTU KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME (AP), High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
mpk wrc
HIGH COURT
DATED:03/04/2024
ORDER
WP.No.45360 of 2017
(3:o 2 J OEC
Current Section . ^
££spatc>»^S**''^•"
DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
r
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: ...PETITIONER(S) Rayavarapu Srinivasulu, S/o. Hariprasad Rao, AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENT(S) SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. N V R AMARNATH
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following: ORDER
226 of the Constitution of India for This writ petition is filed under Article of the 3'’'^ respondent in not registering the FIR basing declaring the action dated 05.10.2017, 09.10.2017 and on the complaints made by the petitioner 16.10.2017, as illegal and arbitrary. is the resident of 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner cloth shop at 12/1 of Arundalpet Srinagar, Guntur Town and by running a is known to the One person namely Kotireddy and caking his livelihood, and he introduced the 4th respondentandhecametohisshop petitioner is constructing the apartments at Ponnuru regularly and informed that he is and obtained and he is giving partnership ini the said apartment 4th respondent the petitioner made Rs.26,50,000/- Due to illegal acts of the Police informed that the before the Ponnur P.S. and the Ponnur a complaint to file a complaint before under their jurisdiction said complaint is not come
9.10.2017 the petitioner made another complaint the S'"'! respondent and on before the 3^^ respondent but the ard respondent hasnottakenanyactionso far. Later, the petitioner made another complaint before the respondent complaining the acts ofhteSerd respondent. But in vain. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
AIR 2012 SC 1515 + M ANU/SC/0157/2012
i
- In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearlyexplained the distinction between the ratio laid down in LalithaKumariscase(supra 1) and the cases of like nature and clearly held thatthewritpetitionisnot maintainable.
dismissed. However, the 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedyprovidedinCr.P.C.,if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
closed.
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Gvl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the basis of the order in Writ Petition No.35174 of 2017 regarding police inaction.
Whether the writ petition seeking direction to register FIR is maintainable considering the settled legal position on alternative remedies under Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State (Ap)Applied¶6
Writ Petition No.35174 of 2017, dated 07.03.2024
UnreportedFollowed¶81
W.P. No. 14324 of 2020
UnreportedRelied on¶84
W.P. No.8384 of 2020 & batch
UnreportedFollowed¶81
W.A.No.l04 of 2022
Lalita Kumari V. State of Uttar PradeshFollowed¶82
AIR 2012 SC 1515 · Who else cites this
Sunkara Bhaskara Rao
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Dr. Justice K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
