Nadipineni Sai Priya vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4222 AP

                                  1




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                  Writ Petition No.23915 of 2021

ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that

the report lodged by her before the police is not considered 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 4.

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. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.2, this Court has again recently in

Yellamelli Arjunudu v. The State of A.P.3 held that the Writ

Petition is not maintainable in the given facts and circumstances

of the case.

6. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not

maintainable. No costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also

stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:23.10.2021.

cs

(2014) 2 SCC 1

(2008) 2 SCC 409

Order dated 20.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.22883 of 2021.