Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Nagappa, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its ... on 22 April, 2024
1
APHC010391292017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 32686/2017
Between:
K.nagappa, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S)
Secretary and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G L NARASIMHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the police in not registering the FIR on the complaint given on 11.09.2017 by the petitioner and not taking any action against the unofficial respondents, as illegal and arbitrary.
2
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he purchased house bearing H.No.2-536, postal colony, Adhoni Town & Mandal, Kurnool District, admeasuring 5 cents 40x55 sft. Vide Registered Document No.9815 of 2015, dated 17.10.2015. Since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later, the un-official respondents are trespassed into his house and near about half cent 3fts in length and removed survey stones and encroached the land of the petitioner. And when the petitioner obstructed them they poured life threats to him as the unofficial respondents having money and mussel, political power. Therefore, immediately, the petitioner made a complaint to the respondents No.2 to 4 on 11.09.2017 but no action has been taken so far. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition submits that even though the report dated 11.09.2017 made out a prima facie case of wrongful restrain, wrongful confinement and criminal trespass which warrants criminal law into motion, but the respondent police failed to act upon the report. He submits that the action of the respondent police i.e., respondents No.2 to 4 in non-registering the FIR upon the report dated 11.09.2017 is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
3
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home while relying on the decisions of this Court passed in W.P.No.14324 of 2020 & batch, W.P. No.8384 of 2020 & batch and also a decision of a Division Bench this Court passed in W.A.No.104 of 2022, submits that, in the above judgments it was held that the writ petitions, in view of the availability of efficacious and alternative remedy, were not maintainable and directed the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy, if they were so advised. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the writ petition and issue a direction to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.
6. In a case of Lalita Kumari V. State of Uttar Pradesh1, wherein the Apex Court held that a duty is caste upon the concerned police to register Fir and investigate the same if the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The truancy exhibited by the respondent police necessitated them to seek writ jurisdiction of this Court.
7. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this High Court. Now it is well settled law that when police failed to register the F.I.R. based on the report lodged by any individual disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
1 AIR 2012 SC 1515 + MANU/SC/0157/2012 4
8. Considering the earlier judgments of the Apex Court rendered on the same issue, this Court in a batch of writ petitions, disposed of on 30.07.2020 in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch, held that when police failed to register F.I.R. based on the report lodged with them, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable.
9. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari's case (supra 1) and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable.
10. In view of the above legal position, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy provided in Cr.P.C., if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Gvl 5 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32686 of 2017 Date : 22.04.2024 Gvl