Attaluri Siva Krishna vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 2446 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

             WRIT PETITION No. 20240 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of

the respondents in registering the crime on the basis of the

petitioner's complaints dated 17.04.2022 and 18.04.2022 given

to Respondents 2 and 3 under appropriate section of law and in

conducting an effective and fair investigation.

2. Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that on 17.04.2020 at about 06.30 p.m., while the

petitioner visited one of his friend's house at Undekodu Village,

one Mr. Umapathi and others criminally trespassed into the

house of his friend and severely assaulted and beat him with

stick and hand by abusing him in filthy language and he was

further hit on his head. It is stated that laptop and mobile

phone of the petitioner's friend was forcibly taken and he was

threatened with dire consequences if he fails to give password of

laptop and mobile phone and due to threat, the petitioner was

forced to give the password. It is stated that Umapathi and his

family members physically tortured the petitioner by

indiscriminately hitting on his vital parts and abusing that the

petitioner cannot love their daughter as they belong to different

caste. It is stated that the petitioner was subjected to semi-

unconsciousness and the police vehicle came and took him to

the police station around 09.30 P.M. and from there the 2nd

respondent referred him to Makthal Government Hospital.

Petitioner was treated as out-patient and advised to go for a

brain CT scan and administered first aid. Learned counsel

submits that when the petitioner has lodged a complaint before

the police, though they have taken the complaint, neither they

have acknowledged the same nor registered the FIR. He

submits that the action of the respondents is nothing but pure

abuse of process of law. Learned counsel also relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v.

Government of Uttar Pradesh1 and submits that a duty is cast

upon the respondent police to register the complaint. Learned

counsel has placed before this Court the photographs showing

that the petitioner has been beaten up and also the Government

Hospital O.P. card which shows that the petitioner was allegedly

beaten by known people with stick on head. He submits that

because of the inaction on the part of the respondent police, the

fundamental rights of the petitioner have been violated. Hence,

(2014) 2 SCC 1

the petitioner has no effective alternative remedy but to

approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

Sri S. Ramamohana Rao submits that the present Writ Petition

is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in

Writ Petition No. 38397 of 2019 and batch, dated 08.03.2019

wherein a coordinate bench of this Court has taken a view that

the party has an effective alternative remedy to approach the

competent criminal Court by filing an Application under Section

200 Cr.P.C. He submits that the Writ Petition has to be

dismissed on this ground.

4. Generally, this Court is not entertaining the Writ

Petitions filed questioning the non-registration of the complaint

/ FIR, 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 cases of non-registration of the

complaint, the remedy of the affected person is to file a private

complaint. This Court also dismissed several Writ Petitions

relying on the said order in batch of cases.

5. 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 effective alternative remedy available under law.

In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai2,

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

the 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.

6. In this particular case, the petitioner was taken to

hospital wherein he was treated as an out-patient in a medico

legal case and as per the outpatient card, the petitioner was

allegedly beaten by known people with stick on head, back and

(1998) 8 SCC 1

abdomen. The respondent police ought to have considered the

complaint given by the petitioner and should have acted upon

the same. Particularly when the police have admitted the

petitioner in the hospital, they ought to have acted in

accordance with law.

7. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed directing the

respondent police to take appropriate action on the complaints

of the petitioner dated 17.04.2022 and 18.04.2022 in

accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to

costs.

8. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

automatically closed.

-----------------------------------

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 07th June 2022

ksld