Telangana High Court
M. Vindhya Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 11 March, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No. 6518 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and perused the
record.
2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the
admission stage and the lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice
to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for adjudication of the
present Writ Petition.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that though the respondents-
authorities have registered a case against the petitioner and his brothers,
vide Crime No.81 of 2025, the respondents-authorities are not taking any
action on the complaint dt.05.02.2025 made by the petitioner against the
6th respondent, which action it is contended is illegal and arbitrary and
contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Lalitha K um ari v/ s.
Governm ent of Uttar P radesh 1 .
4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 would submit that the respondents-
authorities have registered a case based on the complaint made by the 6th
(2014) 2 SCC 1
respondent herein, wherein she had named the petitioner and his brothers
as accused.
5. Learned Government Pleader further submits that on the
respondents-authorities initiating action by causing enquiry into the
aforesaid complaint and calling upon the petitioner for the purpose of
investigation into the aforesaid crime registered, the petitioner as a
counterblast to the aforesaid case registered against them has sent a
representation/complaint by registered post.
6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that a Writ of Mandamus directing
registration of a crime/FIR cannot be issued by the High Court in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court in
catena of decisions following the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Sakiri Vasu v/ s State of Uttar P radesh 2 and M . Subram aniam and
Ors. v/ s. S. Janaki and Ors 3 , had held that since, Code of Criminal
Procedure/ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') is a
complete code by itself, if the complainant is aggrieved by the inaction of
the respondents-authorities in not registering his complaint, he has to
avail the remedies provided in law.
2008 (2) SCC 409
(2020) 16 SCC 728
8. In the facts of the present case, though the petitioner claims of the
respondents-authorities not registering a crime based on his complaints
dt.30.01.2025 and 05.02.2025, sent by registered post, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner has to avail remedies provided under Section
173(4) read with Section 223 of the BNSS, instead of approaching this
Court.
9. Granting liberty as noted above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall
stand closed.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:11.03.2025
GJ
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
11.03.2025
GJ
