Disposed¶79

Dr. Poonuri Sanath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Apr 2025WP/10849/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR non-registration; writ of mandamus refused; Article 226 jurisdiction; alternate remedy exhaustion; Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.; Section 174 BNSS; approach Superintendent of Police; private complaint before Magistrate; cognizable offence; Sakiri Vasu v State of Uttar Pradesh; M. Subramaniam v S. Janaki (2020) 16 SCC 728; common order dt.10.03.2025 in W.P.Nos.7159, 7176, 7205, 7214, 7329 of 2025; Shamshabad Police Station; Cyberabad; State of Telangana; Justice T. Vinod Kumar; disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of in terms of the common order dt. 10.03.2025 in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, with liberty noted to pursue the statutory alternate remedies (SP / private complaint before Magistrate); no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed. ¶79

Dr. Poonuri Sanath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents-authorities' failure to register an FIR on the petitioners' complaint dated 12.03.2025 against the persons named therein is illegal and arbitrary, and whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing registration of the crime and investigation. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The present writ petition is disposed of for reasons alike as stated in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch (common order dt. 10.03.2025) and in terms thereof, with no order as to costs; the Registry is directed to append a copy of that common order to this order.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

No direction can be issued to the respondents-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners; consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court (M. Subramaniam, reiterating Sakiri Vasu), a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the authorities to register an FIR/crime even though the complaint indicates commission of an offence.

¶78

Key takeaways

Alternate statutory safeguards: if the Station House Officer does not register the crime on a complaint, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police; if the SHO or SP refuses to register the FIR and investigate, the complainant may file a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate, who, if prima facie satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, may direct the officer-in-charge of the police station to investigate and submit a report under the Cr.P.C./BNSS.ratio¶75
The petitioners did not avail or exhaust the said alternate remedies before approaching this Court under Article 226.ratio¶76
If aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in not registering their complaints, it is always open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private complaint before the concerned Criminal Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (T. Vinod Kumar, J.), W.P.No.10849 of 2025, decided 10.04.2025: Two doctors sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal the inaction of the SHO, Shamshabad Police Station, in registering an FIR on their complaint dated 12.03.2025 and directing registration of crime and investigation. With consent, the petition was heard and disposed of at admission stage, following the common order dated 10.03.2025 in W.P.Nos.7159, 7176, 7205, 7214 and 7329 of 2025 (appended to this order). Relying on the three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728, which reiterated Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the authorities to register an FIR/crime even though the complaint indicates commission of an offence. The Court noted the statutory scheme: on the SHO's failure to register, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police, and on refusal by either, may file a private complaint before the Magistrate, who may direct investigation under the Cr.P.C./BNSS if prima facie satisfied. The petitioners had not exhausted these remedies. Writ petition disposed of, no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10849 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Dr. Poonuri Sanath Reddy, S/o Dr.P. Krishna Prasad Reddy^{Aged 57 years} occ.Doctor r/o H.no.8-2-686lDlBl2O Apartment no.2, Sai Towers, Road^no.12, Banjara hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 Dr. Junnuthula Narayan Reddy, S/o J. Venkat Ram Reddy^{Aged 75 years} occ. Doctor r/o Plot no.93-A, Vahini nagar, Sikh road, Secunderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary^{HomeDepartment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Commis6ioner of Police, Cyberabad, at Gachibowli, Ranga^Reddy District.

¶14

3 The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police^{Station,Ranga Reddy} District

¶15

...RESP.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus', declaring the inaction of the^{respondent no. 3 in taking} immediate steps for registration of crime basing on the report submitted^{by the} petitioner dt.123-r}25 and taking action against the concerned^persons by conducting enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, violative of^{principles of natural justiceand} consequently direct the respondent no.3 to register^{crime and take action against} the concerned persons and^proceed with investigation

¶17

lA NO:^'f OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rr support of the petition, the High Corrt may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to register crime basing - on the report d1.12-3-2025 submitted by the petitioner and proceed with investigation and take further-action against the concerneC persons, pending disposal of the ab(lve writ petition in the interest of justice

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DANTU VENKATA RAMANA SARMA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I \

¶23

I I

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶25

W.P.No. LOa49 of 2O2S

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities, basing on the complaint made by the petitioners on 12.O3.2025, are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the person(s) named therein, which action of the ofhcial respondents it is contended as highty illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the ofhcral respondents submit that the issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

¶30

Recording the same, for rcasons alike as rvere stated in thc aforesaid Writ Petitions, uide W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch,

¶31

¶32

Frr

¶33

dt. 10.03.2025. an.l^{in termsthereof, the present writ Petition is}

¶34

also disposccl^{of. tl*o orderas to costs.}

¶35

Registrl is directed to^{appenda copy} of^{thrt order passedin}

¶36

W.p.Nos.71 59 of^{2025&. bakh, dt. 10.03.2025,to this order.}

¶37

Consequcnllv, miscellaneous^petitions, if a:r'y,^pending shall

stand closed

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY DEPUTY TRAR V

¶42

SECTIQN OFFICER

¶43

1 The Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, T.S..Hvderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Potice, Cyberabad, at Gachibowli, narigj i;ddyDistrict.

¶44

The Station House Officer, Shamshabad^police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶45

4 One CC to SRI DANTU VENKATA RAMANA SARMA. Advocate ropucr 5. Two CCs to GF, FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of fetangiri; ai^-' Hyderabad [OL T]

¶46

Two CD Copies

BM PSK ry--

r4tfi)

F., ,*|:: P'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010412025

ORDER

WP.No.10849 of 2025

,a
,f. 1 HE Sre I4:
\ C
()
5
o
11 7 APB zffi oz
+
,\rrc,lr'.:tc'j s
-=

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

in{
r(
V

¶59

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶60

UI.P.Nos. 7159,7176, 7205.7214. an.d,7329 of 2o25

¶61

COMMON ORDER:

¶62

Since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions-is one and the same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶63

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the leamed Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for the offrcial respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶64

Having regard to the nature of lis involved arrd the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unoflicial respondents in all these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

¶65

Shom of unnecessa.ry details, the case of the^petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section I74 of tl:.e Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita^(for short tsNSS)^{by initiating} action to register FIRs against the unofficial respondents,^{respectively,} basing on the complaints made by the^petitioners, which action^{of the} respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶66

¶67

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Horne, appearing for official responclents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners calnot invoke the^jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court rn the ca se of Gooind. Raju Saml Vs The State of Telangana and, othersl; :hat in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, ttre petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 ot BNSS to seek redressal of their grievance and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Ariicle 226 o{ the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remerfies is contrary to tbe dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sclctri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Prqdesh2.

¶68

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the rec:ord.

¶69

7 . In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2019, dt.27.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 72691 of 2O2O, dt.31.O1.2O24, and also in W.P.Nc,.37446 of 2022 and W.P.No.38397 of 2019, having regard to the lew laid down by a three-judge bench o1'the Supreme Court in M. Subrama.niam and Ors. 7s. S. Janaki drtd Orss, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Ccurt in the case

¶70

| 2oto 1+l eLo t;+

¶71

'?^{2oo8 (2) scc 4oe}

¶72

I (2020) 16 scc 728

¶73

¶74

of Sakiri Vasu's case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondentsauthorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint frled indicates commission of an offence.

¶75

This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and. 72697 of 2O2O, dt.sl.Ol.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House Offrcer not registering the crime basing on the complaint made, the complainant has to avail the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police^(for short 'SPJ, and^{in the} event of the authorities, be it the SHO or the SP, refusing to receive the complaint by registering a FIR and undertaking^{investigation, the} complainant has the further remedy of approaching the concemed Magistrate Court by filing a^private complaint; and that^{on the Court} being pima faae satisfied of tl:e contents of the complaint^disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS cal direct the officer-incharge of the police station to conduct investigation ald^{submit a} report. The above stated procedures envisage safet5r^measuresto ensure registration of a complaint, even if the SHO fails to register^the FIR.

¶76

In the facts of the present cases, admittedly, the^petitioners herein did not show to this Court of they availing/exhausting^{the said} remedies.

¶77

¶78

In view cfthe above, and having regard to the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court is of th: view that no direction to the respondents-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the cornplaints lodged by the petitioners, respectively, can be issued. However, in the event ofthe petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction of tlre respondents-authorities in not registering their complaints, rt rs always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private ,:omplaint before the concerned Criminal Court.

¶79

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶80

As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if .any shall stand ciosed. No order as to costs.

¶81

T. VINOD KUMAR, J

¶82

10'h March, 2025

¶83

9ra

Dr. Poonuri Sanath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Poonuri Sanath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Membi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Gatram Venkateshwara Rao Vs The State Public Information Officer

Gunda Raghavulu Vs The State of Telangana

P. Kalyan Chakravatrthi, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Challa Shahikala Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. M. Revathi Vs The State of Telangana