THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

W.P.No.21213 of 2025

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing

and disposal at admission stage.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though he had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a complaint, dt.17.06.2025, which was also followed up by personal visits, no action is being taken thereon by registering a crime against the persons named in the aforesaid complaint, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal,

arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional.

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that the complaint dt.17.06.2025, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner herein is addressed to Director General of Police, who on receiving the same had forwarded to the 2^nd respondent on 01.07.2025; and that the 2^nd respondent on receiving the aforesaid complaint had in turn

forwarded the same to the 5^th respondent, who on receiving the aforesaid complaint had made a GD entry and caused preliminary enquiry.

4. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the 5^th respondent during the course of preliminary enquiry had examined two people, and the said enquiry revealed existence of a dispute in relation to use of pathway, which is subject matter of a civil suit vide OS.No.38/2023, between the petitioner and one Ramulu & others.

5. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the respondents-authorities on noticing the subject dispute to be subjudice before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, closed the aforesaid complaint as “civil in nature” on 04.07.2025, and issued intimation of the action taken to the petitioner through PMS.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

7. Though the petitioner had claimed inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities in taking action on his complaint dt.17.06.2025, and for the said reason approaching this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, it is settled position of law that in a writ petition no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents-authorities to register an FIR and this Court following the dicta laid down by the Apex Court starting from Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (2) SCC 409, in W.P.No.7159/2025 & Batch, dt.10.03.2025, had held that the petitioners therein have to avail further remedies provided under BNSS and cannot maintain a Writ Petition.

8. Since, in the facts of the present case as it is not shown to this Court of the petitioner availing the remedies provided under BNSS, as it is a complete Code by itself, this Court is of the view that the writ petition as filed is not maintainable.

9. Further, taking note of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Home of the respondents having taken action on the aforesaid complaint by causing preliminary enquiry and having closed the said complaint as “civil in nature” on 04.07.2025, this Court is of the further view that the petitioner should be relegated to avail further remedies provided under BNSS, if he is aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents.

10. Granting liberty as noted hereinabove, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

23^rd July, 2025.

gra