THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.31945 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the official respondents in failing to take appropriate action in registering F.I.R on the complaint of the petitioner dated 11.08.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, abdication of duty cast on them and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being contrary to the scheme envisaged under Sections 30 and 173 of BNSS and clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Vinod Kumar Pandey & another Vs. Seesh Ram Saini & others, (2025 INSC 1095) and seeking a consequential relief to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 forthwith to take action and register the F.I.R against the un-official respondents in pursuance of the petitioner complaint dated

11.08.2025.

Sri Mayur Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the Station House Officer, Bachannapet Police Station on 11.08.2025. The subject matter of the complaint pertains to multiple

sale deeds which were executed on the same land and a complaint was made to that extent and no action has been taken by the respondent authorities on the complaint dated 11.08.2025 till date.

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for Home placed the instructions submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bachannapet Police Station wherein it is submitted that petitioner sent a complaint dated 11.08.2025 through post, which was received by the respondent No.3 on 16.08.2025 stating that the respondent Nos.4 to 12 cheated, damaged the property with criminal intimidation and made false statements. Pursuant to the said complaint, G.D entry was made, however the petitioner did not approach the police station. Later, respondent No.3 conducted enquiry and revealed that the place of offence does not come within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 but the place of offence is at Rampally village which falls under Keesra Mandal jurisdiction, hence respondent No.3 advised the petitioner to approach Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate for redressal of his grievance. In this connection, a letter dated 29.08.2025 has been addressed to the petitioner through post on 04.09.2025. Learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the respondent No.3 has acted upon the complaint and the petitioner did not approach the police station for preliminary enquiry.

4. Learned senior counsel on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1031 of 1999, the relevant portion is extracted as under:

“9. This would be clear from the following discussion. Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Police Officer to investigate any cognizable offence. It reads as under :

" 156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case : -

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned."

10. It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub-section (1) to the extent that the Officer can investigate any cognizable case which a court having jur