Sangala Vinith Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3209 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                   WRIT PETITION No.27779 of 2022

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of the

official respondent No.3 in taking any steps pursuant to the complaint

made by the petitioner on 20-06-2022 against the unofficial respondent

Nos.4 to 6.

2. Mr. V. Durga Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that the petitioner and respondent No.4 got married

in Arya Samaj and they are living in Christian Colony and thereafter,

disputes arose between them and respondent No.4 has called

respondent Nos.5 to 6 along with her relatives and physically assaulted

the petitioner and also abused him in filthy language in the name of his

caste. He further submits that the unofficial respondents are planning

to kill the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are also trying to abort

the pregnancy of respondent No.4 illegally and hence, he has lodged a

complaint on 20-06-2022 before respondent No.3, but no action has

been taken by registering the crime against the unofficial respondent

Nos.4 to 6. Learned counsel submits that the in-charge of the police

station is bound to register the FIR in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C.

when the allegations in the complaint give rise to a cognizable offence.

It is also stated that the duty of the police officer has to register a case

and carry out proper investigation into the matter and ascertain the

cause behind the complaint. Learned counsel submits that the inaction

of the respondent police is highly arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the

petitioner has come up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

Sri S. Ramamohana Rao submits that he will get instructions in this

matter and file a detailed counter.

4. Though there are no fetters in entertaining a writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whenever a person

complains of violation of his fundamental right or statutory right, one of

the self imposed restraint is when there is statutorily engrafted

adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available to such person

to redress his grievance the court do not entertain the writ petition but

relegate the party to avail such remedy before invoking extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court.

Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer,

Yeluru Reservoir Project, Peddapuram, East Godavari District,

A.P. and others1,

5. The Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of

alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in

accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in

defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has

resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order

has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the

2005(3) ALD 233(LB)

proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419] ,

Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of

Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar

judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article

226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to

the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained

of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of

grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is

created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be

entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." (emphasis supplied)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal2

6. Despite wide powers conferred by Article 226 of the

Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind

certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional

powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles

requires great caution in its exercise.

State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights3

7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the

remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the

appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was

liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of

(2014) 1 SCC 603

(2010) 3 SCC 571

writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of

discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of

availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise

its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ

petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where

there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or

proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is

challenged.

Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.4

8. Generally, this Court is not entertaining the Writ Petitions

filed questioning the registration or non-registration of the complaint /

FIR, as, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 38397

of 2019 and batch, dated 08.03.2019 has categorically observed that in

the case of non-registering the complaint, the remedy for the affected

person is to file a private complaint.

9. The writ remedy is no doubt an extraordinary remedy and

in every case just because a case is made out on action / inaction of an

authority vested with power, the Writ court will not entertain the writ

petition and the affected party has to avail the remedy available under

law. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai5,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that under Article 226 of the

(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107

(1998) 8 SCC 1

Constitution, the High Court having regard to the facts and

circumstances has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ

petition but the High Court has imposed certain restrictions one of

which is that if an effective alternative remedy is available, the High

court would not normally exercise the jurisdiction. But the alternative

remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a

bar in at least three contingencies; namely where the writ petition has

been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or

where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or

where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the

vires of an Act is challenged.

10. In the light of the law laid down by this Court and the

Apex Court referred to supra, when there is a statutorily-engrafted

adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available to the person,

who complains, to redress his grievance, the Court do not entertain the

writ petition but relegate the party to avail such remedy before invoking

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In this case, the effective

alternative remedy available to the petitioner is to file a private

complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which is an effective alternative

remedy, but not a Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to entertain this Writ

Petition.

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of giving liberty

to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy available to them under

law. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

automatically closed.

______________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 1st July, 2022 sj