A Writ of Mandamus to compel police to register an FIR is not maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted alternative statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by approaching the Magistrate.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents for not registering the First Information Report FIR / Crime against on the 5th respondent based on the report of the Petitioner as arbitrary illegal discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the verdict of the Honble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and consequently direct the respondents to register the First Information Report FIR / Crime against on 5th respondent based on the report of the Petitioner and pass….”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Mr. Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 11.10.2025 to the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, against Respondent No.5 seeking registration of a crime. However, no crime has been registered against Respondent No.5, in clear violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.,¹(2014) 2 SCC 1. He therefore urges this Court to direct Respondent No.4 to register a crime against Respondent No.5 based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment in Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra²(2023) Live Law (SC) 639, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in Lalita Kumari supra that registration of an FIR under Section 154 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is mandatory where a cognizable offence is disclosed.

5. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Nandyal Sub-Division, Nandyal District. In that enquiry, it was revealed that no further action was required to be taken against Respondent No.5, except for removal of the photos and videos which were shared by the petitioner with Respondent No.5 over WhatsApp. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that Respondent No.3, in his written instructions, at paragraph No.5, has stated that the petitioner cannot demand registration of an FIR, as the petitioner is attempting to financially cripple Respondent No.5 and has blackmailed him in relation to Crime No.212 of 2025 of Nandyal III Town Police Station filed against the petitioner.

6. It is further submitted that, as an afterthought, on 06.10.2025, the petitioner approached the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Nandyal, with the very same contention, which was earlier enquired into by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nandyal, on 09.05.2025. The petitioner, in her complaint dated 11.10.2025 lodged against Respondent No.5, states that Respondent No.5 had an evil eye on her and requested her to share her personal photos. Respondent No.5 further threatened that he would post the photos and videos of the petitioner on social media. When the petitioner questioned Respondent No.5, he gave evasive replies and threatened her with dire consequences.

7. It is further submitted that mediation was held between the petitioner and Respondent No.5 by the Women DSP, in which she had seen the personal photos and videos of the petitioner in the mobile phone of Respondent No.5 and gave an assurance that Respondent No.5 would not act against t