Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Sudhakar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 June, 2024
APHC010291552017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 12264/2017
Between:
M.Sudhakar ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following order:
Heard Mr. I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
for the respondent Police.
2. The petitioner herein is questioning the inaction on the
part of the respondent Police in not registering the crime, basing
on the complaint submitted by the petitioner dated 30.01.2017, as
illegal and arbitrary.
3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
Home for the respondent Police, while relying on the decisions of
this Court passed in W.P.No.14324 of 2020 & batch, W.P.
No.8384 of 2020 & batch and also a decision of a Division Bench
this Court passed in W.A.No.104 of 2022, submits that, in the
above judgments it was held that the writ petitions, in view of the
availability of efficacious and alternative remedy, were not
maintainable and directed the petitioner to avail the alternative
remedy, if he is so advised. Therefore, learned Assistant
Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the writ petition and issue
a direction to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.
4. In a case of "Lalitha Kumari V. State of Uttar
Pradesh"1, wherein the Apex Court held that a duty is caste upon
the concerned police to register FIR and investigate the same, if
the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
The truancy exhibited by the respondent police necessitated them
to seek writ jurisdiction of this Court.
5. 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
AIR 2012 SC 1515 + MANU/SC/0157/2012
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.
6. 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.
7. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly
explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha
Kumari's case (supra) and the cases of like nature and clearly
held that the writ petition is not maintainable.
8. Following the decision cited supra, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the
alternative remedy provided in Cr.P.C., if he is so advised. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
______________________________
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date : 21.06.2024
SPP
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 12264 of 2017
Date : 21.06.2024
SPP
