THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 24447 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in registering the crime pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner on 12-05-2022.

2. Sri V. Mallikarjun Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.6 are legally wedded wife and husband and due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner has filed FCOP No.l965 of 2018 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for divorce and respondent No.6 also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner. He submits that in spite of pendency of the said petitions, respondent No.6 came to the house of petitioner forcibly, staying outside his premises and threatening him and his mother with dire consequences and hence, he lodged a complaint before respondent No.5 on 12-05-2022 to take action against respondent No.6 for illegally staying outside of his premises without having any right or any conditional order from the Court, but no action has been taken by registering the crime against respondent No.6. Learned counsel submits that the in-charge of the police station is bound to register the FIR in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C. when the allegations in the complaint give rise to a cognizable offence. It is also stated that the duty of the police officer has to register a case and carry out proper investigation into the matter and ascertain the cause behind the complaint. Learned counsel submits that the inaction of the respondent police is highly arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Sri S. Ramamohana Rao submits that he will get instructions in this matter and file a detailed counter.

4. Though there are no fetters in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whenever a person complains of violation of his fundamental right or statutory right, one of the self imposed restraint is when there is statutorily engrafted adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available to such person to redress his grievance the court do not entertain the writ petition but relegate the party to avail such remedy before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer, Yeluru Reservoir Project, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, A.P. and others, [2005(3) ALD 233(LB)]

5. The Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419] , Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” (emphasis supplied)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal

6. Despite wide powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercis