Disposed¶47

Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2025WP/9677/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-registration of FIR; writ of mandamus refused despite complaint disclosing offence; alternate remedy doctrine; approach to Superintendent of Police; private complaint before Magistrate under Cr.P.C./BNSS; Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh; M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki (three-Judge Bench); Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana; disposed of at admission stage following W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch dated 10.03.2025; Warangal police; P.S. Enumamula; Article 226; Section 151 CPC application; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No direction can be issued to the respondents-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners. ¶96

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents-authorities' failure to register an FIR against the unofficial respondents on the petitioners' complaints dated 22.01.2025 and 25.01.2025 is illegal and arbitrary, and whether a writ of mandamus can issue directing registration of FIR and legal action against respondent Nos. 6 to 13. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

No direction can be issued to the respondents-authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioners.

¶96

Ratio / Principle

If aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in not registering their complaints, it is open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a private complaint before the concerned Criminal Court.

¶96

Key takeaways

Where the Station House Officer does not register the crime on a complaint, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police; and if the SHO or the SP refuses to receive the complaint and register a FIR, the complainant has the further remedy of filing a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate Court, which, if prima facie satisfied that the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, can direct the officer-in-charge of the police station to conduct investigation and submit a report under the Cr.P.C./BNSS.ratio¶88
The present writ petition is disposed of for reasons alike and in terms of the common order in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch dated 10.03.2025, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions stand closed.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 (Telangana High Court, T. Vinod Kumar, J., order dated 01.04.2025, disposing of the petition at the admission stage): Petitioners sought a mandamus declaring illegal the inaction of the Warangal police authorities (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5) in not acting on their complaints dated 22.01.2025 and 25.01.2025 by registering an FIR against the unofficial respondents (Nos. 6 to 13), and seeking directions to take legal action and protect their lands. Following the Court's own common order in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch dated 10.03.2025 (appended hereto), and relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and the three-Judge Bench decision in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, the Court held that no direction can be issued to the authorities to register an FIR on the basis of the complaints. The Court noted that the petitioners had admittedly not exhausted the alternate remedies: approaching the Superintendent of Police, and thereafter filing a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate, who may direct investigation under the Cr.P.C./BNSS. Liberty was left to the petitioners to file a private complaint before the Criminal Court. Writ petition disposed of without costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ I

¶2

H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9677 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Wo. Late Omprakash Malani, Aged 66 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.1'l-24-17113, Shantinagar, Bank Colony, Warangal506002.

¶9

Nilesh Malani, S/o. Late Omprakash Malani, Aged 44 years, Occ. Business, R!/o. H.No.1 1-24-171 13,Shantinagar, Bank Colony, Warangal-506002.

¶10

Rajesh Malani, S/o. Late Omprakash Malani, Aged 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1 1-24-171 13,Shantinagar, Bank Colony, Warangal-506002.

¶11

Srivallabh Jaju, S/o. Laxminarayana, Aged 71 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.11-24h71i4, Shanti Nagar, Bank Colony, Warangal-506002.

¶12

Brij Gopal Bajaj, S/o. Balakishan Bajaj, Aged 63 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.B-3-77, Old Beet Bazar, Chowrasta, Warangal.

¶13

.....PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Development, At Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Commissioner, Warangal Police Commissionerate, At Warangal. 3- The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Warangal Police Commissionerate, East Zone, Hanumakonda, Warangal.

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Warangal Police Commissionerate, Mamnoor, Warangal.

¶18

The Station House Officer, P.S. Enumamula Warangal District.

¶19

Madipelly Varalaxmi, W/o. Late Satish, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, R/o. .

¶20

Suripelly Village, Chennaraopet Mandal, Warangal District.

¶21

Banda Sunitha, Dio. Bheemreddy Ranga Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Plot No.B-76, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad.

¶22

Banda Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business, Fi/o. Suripelly Village, Chennaraopet Mandal, Warangal District.

¶23

Smt. Mittapalli Vijaya, Wo. Nagaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.16-4-1 14, Dayananda Colony, Warangal.

¶24

10.Smt. Kodam Sharada, W/o. Sateesh, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.10-1 1-4, Ramollawada, Girmajipet, Warangal.

¶25

11.Thumma Jannaiah, S/o. Kanakaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Govt. Employee, R:/o. H.No.7-5-1 I, G.M.Office Colony, Janagam Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶26

12.Smt. Samudrala Padma, Wo. Baburao, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.1 1 -1 8-673/A, Vivekananda Colony, Kashibugga, Warangal District.

¶27

13.Erra Kumaraswamy, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged Major, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.1 -1 51/A, Mysampally Viltage, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District.

¶28

.....RESPONDENTS

¶29

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 grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Mandamus, declaring inaction of the 3rd to 5th Respondents in not taking any action against 6th to 13th Respondents, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioners dated 22.01.2025 and 25.01 .2o2s made by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary aAd in violation of Article 14 of constitution of lndia and also consequenfly, to direct the 3rd to Sth Respondents to take appropriate legal action against the 6th to 13th Respondents, as per law, pursuant to petitioner's complaint dated 22.01 .2025 and 25.01 .2025 and also ensure that some protection is provided to the Petitioners to safeguard their lands from the clutches of 9th to i 3th Respondents, in the interest of justice.

¶30

|.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶31

Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 3rd to Sth Respondents to take appropriate legal action against the 6th to 13th Respondents, as per law, pursuant to petitioner's compraint dated 22.01.2025 and 25.01 .2o25 and also ensure that some protection is provided to the Petitioners to safeguard their lands from the clutches of 6th to 13th Respondents, in the interest of justice, pending disposar of the writ petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI ROHIT POGULA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 5 : Gp FOR HOME

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 13 : -

¶35

The Gourt at the stage of admission made the foilowing ORDER

¶36

f I t t I t

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶38

W.P.No. 9677 of 2025

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

The grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners on 22.01.2025 and 25.01.2025, are not initiating action try registering the FIR against the unofhcial respondent, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶41

Heard Iearned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the officia.l 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.

¶42

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶43

Learned counsel appearrng on behalf of petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Llome appearing for the official respondents submit that the issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 29?5

¶44

¶45

I \

¶46

& batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and the said common order would apply in al1 force to the facts of the present case.

¶47

Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Pctitions, uide W.P.Nos.7159 . of 2025 & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and in terms thcreof, the presenl Writ Petition is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶48

Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in

¶49

W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt. 1O.O3.2025, to this order.

¶50

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if an;,, pending shall

¶51

stand closed.

¶52

t\ SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI AS qISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// \ _ ,:

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

¶55

1 . The Secretary, Home^{Department, At Secretariat, Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad.

¶56

The Commissioner,^{Warangal Police Commissionerateat Warangal'}

¶57

The Deputy Commissioner^{of Police,Warangal Police Commissionerate, East} Zone, Hanumakonda, Warangal.

¶58

The Assistant Commissioner^{of Police, Warangal Police Commissionerate,} /amnoor, Warangal.

¶59

The Station House^{Officer,P.S.Enumamula Warangal District'}

¶60

Two CCs to GP^{FORHOME, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶61

One CC to SRI ROHIT^{POGULA, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶62

Two CD CoPies

¶63

sA oo\II

¶64

¶65

(Along with a copy order^{passedin w.P. Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt: 10.03.2025)}

¶66

:'.^.r.-&.!&,- j!*1t-i..,'i B'--.^---:-=;::-

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10412025

)

ORDER

I
1l\l: i" .-, q ,
( it
I
2 E frir ?U5 : I
,,.
a-:-'=:---7

¶72

WP.No.9677 ol 2025

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶74

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶75

WITHOUT COSTS,

¶76

( ro- .-T,|fr["t

¶77

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶78

VI.P.Nos.7159 7176 7205 72L4 and,7329 of 2025

¶79

COMMON ORDER:

¶80

Since the grievance of the petitioners in a-11 the writ petitions is one ald the same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶81

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

¶82

Having regard to the nature of lis involved ald the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unollicial respondents in a1l these writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present wrii Petitions.

¶83

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section t74 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofficial respondents, respectively, basing on tf.e complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶84

¶85

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for oIficial respondents would submit that for non - registration of FIR, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constrtution of India in view of the decrsion of this Court in the case of Govind Raju Sami Vs The State of Telangana and. othersl; that in the event of the respondent SHO refusing to register FIR, the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 or BNSS to seek redressal 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 contrary to tlne dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs State of tlttar Prad.esh2.

¶86

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perllsed the record.

¶87

In similar circumstalces, this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2019, dt.21..O4.2O2O, W.P.No.8189 and, 12697 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol.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. Subramrl.niam and. Ors.^ys. S. Janaki.and. Ors3, wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in tl-re case

¶88

| 2ot9 (4) N,D ti4

¶89

'^zoo8 1z;^{scc +oe}

¶90

' lzozo;^{t6 sccu zt}

¶91

¶92

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

¶93

This Court, in W.P.No.8189 ar.d 72691 of 2O2O, dt.3l.Ol.2o24, 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 'SP'), ald 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 concerned Magistrate Court by filing a private complaint; and that on the Court being pima facre satisfied of the contents of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, tJre Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Cr.P.C./BNSS can direct the ofhcer-incharge of the police station to conduct investigation and subrnit a report. The above stated procedures envisage safety measures to ensure registration of a complaint, even if the SHO fails to register the FIR.

¶94

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

¶95

¶96

In view of the 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, respcctivcly, can be issued. However, in the event ofthe petitioners being 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 concerned Criminal Court.

¶97

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

¶98

As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand

¶99

closed. No order as lo costs.

¶100

T. VINOD KT'MAR, J

¶101

10th March, 2025

¶102

gra

Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Darapuneni Shakunthala Vs the State of Telangana

M/s. Pushpanjali Engineering Works Vs M.Pushpal Reddy

Zareena Khatoon Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Yash Jain Vs State of Telangana

Kauser Tasneem Vs The State of Telangana