SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17140

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J
Y MUNASWAMY – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 20608/2024



Advocates:
D KISHORE KUMAR, GP FOR HOME

The court affirmed that an aggrieved party can approach the Magistrate for relief if a police FIR is not registered, ensuring adherence to legal procedures.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Writ of Mandamus - The petitioner sought to declare the inaction of the respondents regarding a complaint as arbitrary and illegal, alleging violations of natural justice. The police conducted a preliminary inquiry and found the allegations false. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Legal Remedies - The court reiterated that if a FIR is not registered, the aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police or file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for relief. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming inaction by the police regarding a complaint dated 02.09.2024.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner could seek relief through the Magistrate.

Issues: Whether the respondents' inaction constituted a violation of natural justice and what remedies are available to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal avenues available to the petitioner when a police station fails to register an FIR, as outlined in the cited Supreme Court case.

Result: Writ Petition closed.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 5 th and 6 th respondents in not taking any action on the petitioner’s Complaint dated 02.09.2024 and the representation to the 3rd respondent to direct the 6 th respondent to register the petitioner’s complaint dated 02.09.2024 on 09.09.2024 is Arbitrary, Illegal, Violation of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to register the petitioners complaint on life threat and atrocity dated 02.09.2024 and investigate the same in accordance with law and pass…… ”

2. Heard Sri D.Kishore Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home. Perused the record.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Home representing the State, on written instructions, would submit that police conducted the preliminary inquiry against the report dated 02.09.2024 and found the allegations are false.

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.Subramaniam Vs. S.Janaki and another 2020 (16) SCC 728 wherein it was held that “if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 153 Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation ” .

5. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above precedent, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate for necessary relief, by filing private complaint.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top