The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ of mandamus can be declined when seeking to direct registration of FIR before exhausting the available statutory remedies under Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

1. Above enumerated Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by different petitioners, and they commonly pray for;

"....a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents specifically Respondent No.4 to take cognizance of the petitioners' complaints dtd. 4/11/2023 and 6/11/2023 respectively and follow the due process of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others in 1 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.68 of 2008 as any contrary would be violative of the said judgment".

2. These Writ Petitions were heard together as the same question of law is involved and the same are disposed of by way of this common order at admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel representing both parties. Before venturing into the determination of the prayers sought, it is essential to draw the contours of necessary facts that are emanating from the W.Ps.

3. The facts which led to filing of W.P.No.29945 of 2023, are:

i. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is a distant relative of one Santosh Kumar Bavisetty. It is stated that one Malathi, W/o. Santosh Kumar and her brother Mahesh, with an intention to harass the Petitioner, falsely implicated him along with her husband in Crime No.11 of 2022 at Kasinagar Police Station, Odisha for the offences under Ss. 498-A, 323, 313, 294 read with 34 IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He would submit that due to his false implication in a criminal case, he was forced to seek an anticipatory bail, resulting in unnecessary expenditure of money and energy. He further stated that he did not commit any crime. The Police, after investigation, deleted his name in the charge sheet, since no incriminating material is found against him.

ii. It is stated that he has sent a letter to Respondent No.4, dtd. 4/11/2023 elaborating all the issues with a request to initiate appropriate action by registering a case under relevant Ss. of Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act as due to the false implication, he suffered social stigma, death threats and hatred.

iii. It is his case that registration of FIR is mandatory as per Sec. 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[In short "Cr.P.C"] when the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and in such cases no preliminary inquiry is permissible, vide Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1.

4. The facts which led to the filing of W.P.No.30004 of 2023 are:

i. It is the case of the Petitioner herein is that one Yernagula Malathi is his wife. His marriage with her took place on 15/6/2019, while so, they have been living separately since 29/4/2021 due to some issues. His version is that his wife filed several matrimonial cases against him. He made multiple complaints against his wife and her family members at local Police Stations.

ii. It is his further case that, on 28/10/2023 at 8.00 p.m., his wife Malathi along with some unidentified persons, with an intention to criminally intimidate the Petitioner and his parents and to unlawfully steal some important documents and other materials criminally trespassed the house of the petitioner which was captured in the CCTV Camera. He further states that, had the petitioner or his old aged parents been present at the residence, it would lead to a serious incident.

iii. It is also further case that, though he addressed a letter to Respondent No.4, dtd. 6/11/2023 elaborating the incident to initiate appropriate action against the accused by registering a case under relevant Ss. of Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act, they have not registered the case.

iv. It is his case that registration of FIR is mandatory when the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible, vide Lalita Kumari (referred supra). Hence, W.P.

Arguments advanced at the Bar:

5. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra PVG, learned counsel for the Petitioner and