Telangana High Court
Smt. Lambadi Thulasi vs The State Of Telangana on 28 March, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No. 9455 of 2025
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 6, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on he being cheated by the 7th respondent, promising to provide job to his daughters by collecting an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and, in spite of the petitioner running around the 7th respondent for not providing job, thereafter seeking refund of the amount and on the said amount not being refunded to the petitioner, he had approached the respondents-authorities and lodged a complaint, dt.10.02.2025, and also sent the same to the higher authorities by registered post on 06.03.2025. 2
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in spite of the petitioner sending the aforesaid complaint to the Superintendent of Police also, no action is taken thereon nor any crime is registered against the cheating resorted to by the 7th respondent, which action it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh 1.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the respondents-authorities are in receipt of a complaint dt.10.02.2025 by registered post and on receiving the aforesaid complaint, the 6th respondent-authority had called the petitioner to cause preliminary enquiry and during the enquiry, the petitioner was called upon to show the evidence of payment of amount alleged to have been paid to the 7th respondent.
6. Inasmuch as the petitioner failed to show any evidence in relation to the aforesaid payment, the authorities have closed the aforesaid complaint as 'civil in nature' on 27.03.2025 and served notice of the action taken on the complaint to the petitioner on the same date.
1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 3
7. Learned Government Pleader further submits that in the event of the petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken by the respondents-authorities, he is required to approach the Magistrate concerned to avail the remedies provided under BNSS.
8. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
9. Though the petitioner claims to have submitted a complaint to the respondents-authorities initially on 10.02.2025, the said complaint does not bear any acknowledgment nor the petitioner obtained any acknowledgment of the said submission.
10. The petitioner thereafter having sent the aforesaid complaint to the 6th respondent and to the Superintendent of Police by registered post on 06.03.2025, and the respondents-authorities on receiving the same having initiated enquiry there into, cannot claim no action having been initiated thereon.
11. Further, the 6th respondent having called upon the petitioner to substantiate his claim made in the aforesaid complaint by showing the details of payment of Rs.5 lakhs made to the 7th respondent, the petitioner having failed to substantiate the aforesaid claim, resulted in the authorities closing the aforesaid complaint as 'civil in nature' by issuing intimation to the petitioner. 4
12. Since, the respondents having closed the complaint lodged by the petitioner by issuing intimation of the action taken, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken by the respondents-authorities in closing the same as 'civil in nature', is required to approach the Magistrate concerned as provided under Section 173(4) of BNSS instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. It is settled position of law that in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot issue a direction to register an FIR(See: M. Subramaniam & Abr. vs S. Janaki & Anr. 2).
14. Since, the authorities have now informed this Court of the action taken on the complaint made by the petitioner by issuing intimation, dt.27.03.2025, this Court is of the view that petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedies open to him in law.
15. Granting liberty as noted hereinabove, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
2 AIR ONLINE 2020 SC 387 5
16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 28th March, 2025.
gra