Telangana High Court
Ch Rajeshwar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 8 July, 2022
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.9735 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 12-06-2021 against the unofficial respondent
No.4.
2. Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that respondent No.4 has borrowed a sum of
Rs.10 lakhs from the petitioner promising to repay the same within one
month and on the same day, he has given a post dated cheque, which
would be honoured without any prior notice exactly after one month i.e.,
17-04-2021, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement
that 'the account has been closed long back'. He submits that as it is a
case of clear cheating and not the case of Negotiable Instruments Act,
the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 12-06-2021 before respondent
No.3, but no action has been taken by registering the crime against the
unofficial respondent No.4. 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
8th July, 2022
sj
