Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Borra Venkata Krishna Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 July, 2021
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.12583 of 2021
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is
that the report lodged by them before the police is not
received and registered as F.I.R. and the same is not
investigated.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for official
respondents 1 to 8.
3. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra
and the same has been well settled as per the authoritative
pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this High Court.
Now it is well settled law that when police failed to register the
F.I.R. based on the report lodged by any individual disclosing
commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way
of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are
available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190
r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
4. Considering the earlier judgments of the Apex Court
rendered on the same issue, this Court in a batch of writ
petitions, disposed of on 30.07.2020 in W.P.No.8384 of 2020
and batch, held that when police failed to register F.I.R. based
on the report lodged with them, which discloses commission
of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is
not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies
contemplated under Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3)
and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ
petition seeking such direction to the police to register the
F.I.R. is not maintainable. In the aforesaid judgment, this
Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the
ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1
and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ
petition is not maintainable. Therefore, no direction as
sought for to the police to register the F.I.R. can be given.
5. However, as it is the grievance of the petitioners that
respondents 7 and 8 police officials colluded with the
unofficial respondents herein, who are respondents 9 to 11,
and insisting the petitioners to deliver possession of the
property in question to respondents 9 to 11. It amounts to
interference by the police officials in a civil dispute pertaining
to property rights of land between the petitioners and
unofficial respondents 9 to 11. The respondents 7 and 8 are
not competent to interfere in any such civil dispute and they
are not justified in insisting the petitioners to deliver
possession of the property in question to unofficial
respondents 9 to 11. Therefore, they shall desist from
resorting to any such illegal acts.
(2014) 2 SCC 1
6. With the above observations, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also
stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date:01.07.2021.
cs
