The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-registration of an FIR with costs, relying on a Supreme Court precedent. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a private complaint as an alternate remedy.
Petitioner to file a private complaint against respondent No.6; no order as to costs.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION NO. 3198 OF 2018
Between:
Athikkur Rahaman, S/o Abdul Rahaman, aged about 50 years, R/o. Gadwal Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District (Previously in Mahaboobnagar District)' Gadwal
...pETrroNER
AND
2 The Superintendent of Police, Jogulamba Gadwal District, Gadwal The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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 mandamus declaring the action of the 3 rd respondent in not registering the FIR basing on the petitioner's complaint dated 2.11.2017 (Receipt vide Complaint No.000695) as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 to register FIR and conduct investigation into the offences in the complaint.
lA NO: 1 OF 2018
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 4 and 5 to register the FIR basing on the petitioner's complaint dated 9.11.201 7 (Receipt vide Complaint No.000695), pending disposal of the writ petition,
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THOTA GOPINATH
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No.6: -
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
W.P.No.3198 of 2018
ORDER:
i. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner made a complaint dated 02.11.2017 to respondent No.5 against respondent No.6 but respondent No.5 has not registered the same. Challenging the inaction of respondent No.5 in registering the crime against respondent No,6, the present writ petition is filed.
No.6. There shall be no order as to costs.
---'
'zozoltolSCC 728 SD/. K,SAILESHI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
SE3TION OFFICER
To'1. On" CC to Sri Thota Gopinath, Advocate tOPUq .
MP TP {
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2510812021
ORDER
'rAr€
-( ,aiE S
ti:
.:l
4I t 3t? $n
*
/A,
k
WP.No.3198 of 2018
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
6
2r
q
)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging non-registration of an FIR shall be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when Supreme Court law dictates otherwise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subramanyam Vs. JanakiFollowed¶2
Subramanyam Vs. Janaki
Athikkur Rahaman
The State of Telangana
The Superintendent of Police, Jogulamba Gadwal District
Mrs. Anees Fathima
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Parties & counsel
