THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.15035 OF 2017

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent/authorities in not registering the complaints dated 02.06.2014, 26.06.2015, 06.06.2016 and 09.09.2016 against the named persons in the complaints for registration of FIR for taking criminal actions in spite of mandatory directions laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2014(2) SCC-1 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to register the complaints forthwith for initiating criminal actions against the persons named in the complaints”.

2. I have heard Mr.P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G. Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that contending the inaction of the respondent/police authorities in not registering the complaints dated 02.06.2014, 26.06.2015, 06.06.2016 and 09.09.2016, this petition is filed seeking necessary directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents on written instructions would submit that basing on the averments in the complaint that the petitioners were not allowed in conducting agricultural operations in the disputed land. As per the entries in the police report dated 02.06.2014, letters were addressed to Sub-Divisional Police Officer,Narasampet, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasampet, Circle Inspector of Police, Gudur and Station House Officer, Kothaguda and these matters were considered and as the disputes belong to reserve forest, and as it is civil in nature, no further proceedings were taken up. However, upon filing of this writ petition a letter dated 27.04.2017 was addressed to the Forest Range Officer, Kothaguda seeking clearance for investigation purpose. Thus the contention that the representations of the petitioners were not acted upon, is found untenable.

5. I have carefully perused the materials on record.

6. The contention of the petitioners is that the complaints were not properly attended by registering a crime by the police. The explanation offered by the respondent No.4 is evident that the police reports have been properly attended. Nonetheless, if the petitioners are aggrieved of non registration of crime by the police, basing on their report, the petitioners are expected to avail adequate remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this aspect, the issue of whether a writ petition is maintainable for issuance of a direction to register an FIR has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC 907. Following the dictum laid down therein, this Court in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana, 2019 SCC OnLine TS 3491, clarified that a party seeking redressal of a grievance regarding non-registration of an FIR must first exhaust the alternative statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now replaced in part by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Accordingly, a writ petition filed directly for such relief, without availing those remedies, is not maintainable.

7. The aforesaid legal position has further been fortified by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387. In light of the settled position of law, the prayer made in the present writ petition is not maintainable. However, the rights of the petitioners are reserved to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and avail appropriate remedies as provided under law.

8. In the light of the above cited legal position, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedies availa