Disposed

Chougoni Sekhar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025WP/35721/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to direct police to register an FIR on his complaint alleging inaction by the SHO. Following earlier batch orders, the court held no writ can compel FIR registration where alternate remedies exist; petitioners may approach the SP or file a private complaint before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty given to avail alternate remedies of approaching SP or filing private complaint; no costs.

Chougoni Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3 5721 0F 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chougoni _Sgkf,e!., S/o Abhimanyu @ Anjaiah, Aged about 42yrs, Occ Business, fi/o H.No.1-260, Katim6ra R-oad, kattdnguiu Viilage ,na'MbnOJ[ Nalgonda Diskict.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its principal Secretary, Department of Home, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director General of Police, Telangana State at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District

¶15

The Station House Officer, Kaftanguru police Station, Nalgonda District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus in inaction of the Respondent No.4 in not registering the FlR, in spite of the complaint dt.211.2024 given the petitioner, which is illegal, arbitrary, and also violation of Articles 199, 200 and sectionlTs (3) of BNSS and consequenfly direct the Respondent Nos,2 to 4 to register the First lnformation Report on the basis of the complaint dt. 27.11,2024 of the petitioner and conduct the enquiry as per the law and protect Petitioner's life and liberty

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 Respondent No.2 to 4 to register the First lnformation Report on the basis of the complaint dt- 27.11.2024 of the petitioner and conduct the enquiry as per the law and protect Petitioner's life and liberty, pending disposal of the maln writ Petition

¶20

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. SANJEEVA REDOY cARLApATt

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶26

W-P.No.3572Lof 2()24

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The grievance oF the petitioner in the present Writ Petltion is that basing on the complaint made by the petitioner dt.02.11.2024, the respondents-authorities are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the persons named therein, which action of the-respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶29

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, and perused the record.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents submit that the issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this court in wP.Nos.7159 0f 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, and the said common order would apply in all force to the facts of the present case.

¶31

Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, vide W.P.Nos.7l59 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, the present Writ Petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending shall stand

¶33

closed.

¶34

SD/-T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFTCER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Department of Home, Hyderabad.}

¶39

The Director General^{of Police,Telanganastateat Lakdikapool, Hyderabad}

¶40

The Superintendent^{of Police, Nalgonda District}

¶41

The Station House officer,^{Kattanguru Police Station, Nalgonda District}

¶42

One CC to SRl. SANJEEVA^{REDDYGARLAPATI Advocate[OPUC]}

¶43

Two CCs to^{GPFOR HOME} ,High^{Court for the State of Telangana' [OUT]}

¶44

Two CD Copies

KKS LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710412025

ORDER

WP.No.35721 of 2024

1HE S IA rd
<!^
('(
oo 2I tpn znr C2
t t,
l)F.en, ?f ilia

¶51

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q^e{

¶52

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶53

W.P.Nos.7159 7176 72o5 72L4 and.7329 of 2o25

¶54

COMMOT{ ORDER

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section f 54(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sarhita (for short tsNSSJ 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.

¶59

¶60

Per contra,learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Cor.rrt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Godnd. Raju Scmi Vs The.State of Telangana and otherst; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or BNSS to seek redressa_l of their grievance; and that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternate remedies is contraty to tLre dicto laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs Sto:te oJ t ttar Prad.eshz.

¶61

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged ald pemsed the record.

¶62

In similar circumstances, this Court in W.p.No.2449S of 2019, dt.2l.O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and 1269t of 2O2O, dt.31.01.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 and. W.p.No.38397 of 2019, having regard to the law laid down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subramo.niam and Ors. Vs. S. Ja.na.ki and Ors3, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

¶63

'^{2019(4)ALD174}

¶64

'^zoo8 1z;^scc+oo I (2020) 16 scc 728

¶65

¶66

of Saklri l/asu t case(2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Wit of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondentsauthorities to register an FlR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence.

¶67

This Court, in W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2O2O, dt.37.O1.2024, having regard to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., had held that in the event of the Station House O{Iicer 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, bc 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 concerned Magistrate Court by filing a private cornplaint; ald that on the Court being pima facie satisfied of the contents of the complarnt disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the officer-incharge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safet5r measures^to ensure registration of a complaint, even if the SHO fails^{to register the} FIR.

¶68

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

¶69

¶70

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

¶71

1i. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶72

\2. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any s)-ra1l sta,nd closed. No order as to cosls.

¶73

T. VINOD KUMAR, J

¶74

loth March, 2025

¶75

9ra

Chougoni Sekhar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chougoni Sekhar v. The State of Telangana

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

Ali Azgar Vs The State of Telangana

Birdharaju Sudhakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Maddi Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana

Konda Venkata Narasimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Devakishan Ladda Vs The State of Telangana

Dosali Kalavathamma Vs The State of Telangana