Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Narayana vs State Of Andhrapradesh on 28 July, 2021
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.14583 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 petitioners and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for official
respondents 1 to 3.
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.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends
that suppressing the fact that the petitioners herein have been
in possession of the property, the 5th respondent herein has
earlier filed W.P.No.5193 of 2021 only against the police
officials without impleading the petitioners herein as unofficial
respondents therein and obtained an order against the police
officials directing them not to interfere in the civil disputes in
respect of the lands in question and subsequently, the said Writ
Petition was withdrawn on 30.06.2021. He would further
submit that when the petitioner therein interfered with the
possession of the petitioners herein in respect of the said lands
and when the petitioners herein lodged a report with the police,
that police are not registering the case or taking any legal
action against them on the ground that this Court has earlier in
I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.5193 of 2021 directed the police not
(2014) 2 SCC 1
to interfere with the possession of the said property and
interfere in the civil dispute.
6) Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, while
dismissing the Writ Petition as not maintainable, it is made
clear that the order of this Court passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in
W.P.No.5193 of 2021, dated 08.03.2021, directing the police
officials not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner
therein, in respect of the lands in question and not to interfere
in the civil dispute, will not come in the way of police to proceed
according to law on a report now lodged by the petitioners as
the said Writ Petition is now dismissed as withdrawn on
30.06.2021 and as the aforesaid direction is no more in force.
No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also
stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date:28.07.2021.
cs
