Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Chakrdhar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 July, 2021
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.12509 of 2021
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is
that the report lodged by him 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 such direction as
sought for to the police to register the F.I.R. can be given.
5. However, since the grievance of the writ petitioner is
that 3rd respondent Station House Officer, Peddaraveedu
Police Station, has been also interfering in the civil dispute
between the petitioner and unofficial respondents 4 and 5
and directing the petitioner to maintain status quo relating to
the property in question, it is made clear that the 3rd
respondent Station House Officer, Peddaraveedu Police
Station, has no authority under law to interfere in any such
civil dispute between the petitioner and unofficial
respondents 4 and 5 and he is not competent to give any
such direction to the petitioner to maintain status quo
relating to the property in question. Therefore, the 3rd
respondent Station House Officer, Peddaraveedu Police
Station shall not interfere in any such civil dispute between
(2014) 2 SCC 1
the petitioner and unofficial respondents 4 and 5 and insist
the petitioner to maintain any status quo relating to the
property in question.
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
