THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.25412 OF 2017

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

“issue any other appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in

the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not recording the 164 Cr.P.C statements before the Magistrate as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to file a petition before the Learned Magistrate to record the petitioners 164 Cr.P.C. statements in order

to arrive at the truth”.

2. Heard Mr.P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in Crime No. 93 of 2017, the respondent police filed a charge sheet excluding the prime accused. Since the investigating agency failed to record the petitioners’ statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners approached this

Court seeking appropriate directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contends that, following the registration of the crime, the police duly carried out follow-up proceedings. He submits that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the alleged lapses or improper actions of the investigating authority, the appropriate course would have been to approach the jurisdictional court. Instead, without resorting to such remedy, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, which, according to him, is procedurally improper. Hence, he prays that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have considered the submissions of both sides.

6. The substance of the petitioners’ grievance is that the investigating agency failed to record their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, further, omitted the prime accused from the charge sheet. This clearly demonstrates that the petitioners are essentially challenging the manner in which the investigation has been conducted, particularly the exclusion of the prime accused from the criminal proceedings.

7. In such circumstances, the proper remedy available to the petitioners would be to approach the concerned Magistrate by filing a protest petition or by initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent court. Without availing such remedies, a prayer before this Court seeking a direction to the police for recording 164 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be entertained, as it would not be in consonance with the procedure established by law.

8. Accordingly, the relief sought by the petitioners is found to be untenable. However, the petitioners’ right to pursue appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional court is reserved, if the cause still survives. Subject to this liberty, the present petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________

N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:08.09.2025 AQS