APHC010068502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 3748/2025 Between: 1. KANCHARLA. VIJAYA KUMAR,, S/O RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC- RETD. JUDICIAL OFFICER, R/O SUBBAIAHTHOTA, CHILAKALURIPETA, PALANADU DISTRICT,(ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, BAPATIA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT), BAPATIA. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, REPALLE POLICE STATION, REPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL,BAPATIA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT). 4. KESANA RAMAKRISHNARAO, S/O NANCHARAIAH, AGED ABOUTE 55 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NO-1, RUPA RESIDENCY, OLD LAXMI THEATRE REPALLE, BAPATIA DISTRICT.(ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT). 5. BOMMISETTY VIJAYAPRASAD, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUTE 62 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED SUB REGISTER, R/O TADEPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, MANGALAGIR ROAD,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 6. T MALLIKARJUNARAO, S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC- CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, REPALLE POLICE STATION, REPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT). ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 3 rd respondent in not registering the FIR under Section 420, 200,201 IPC read with 34 of IPC against the respondents no 4 to 6 and not conducting investigation basing on the police report of petitioner dated 04.11.2024. is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation of 154 of Cr.P.C. and also in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3 rd respondent to register the FIR under section420, 200,201 IPC read with 34 of IPC against the respondents no 4 to 6 basing on the police report of petitioner dated 04.11.2024 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 3 rd respondent to register the FIR under 5ection420, 200,201 IPC read with 34 of IPC against the respondents no 4 to 6 basing on the police report of petitioner dated 04.11.2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not registering the FIR under Section 420, 200, 201 IPC read with 34 of IPC against the respondents no 4 to 6 and not conducting investigation basing on the police report of petitioner dated 04.11.2024 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation of 154 of Cr.P.C and also in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the FIR under section 420, 200, 201 IPC read with 34 of IPC against the respondents no 4 to 6 basing on the police report of petitioner dated 04.11.2024 and to pass....…” 2. Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police did not choose to register the FIR against respondent Nos.4 to 6 on the complaint made by him for the offences under Section 420, 200, 201 IPC r/w 34 of IPC. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions would submit that the petitioner, on 9.11.2024, sent a representation by registered post to the Station House Officer, Repalle PS, and subsequently on 17.12.2024 forwarded a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bapatla District. The SP forwarded it to the SDPO, Repalle on 3.01.2025, which in turn forwarded it to the Repalle PS on 4.01.2025. Based 4 on the petitioner’s allegations that Document No. 3822/2022 (dated 29.06.2022) was intentionally undervalued causing a loss exceeding Rs. 5,00,000 to the State the police requisitioned from the Sub-Registrar, Repalle, on 13.11.2024, verification and authenticity details of the document; the Sub‑Registrar replied on 25.11.2024, informing that the alleged deficit stamp duty of Rs. 5,00,526 was remitted (via CFMS Ch.No.813249111720254) and entries adjusted accordingly. Thereafter, the Repalle PS informed the SP of these findings and “closed” the matter, and this communication was forwarded to the petitioner by registered post on 19.12.2024. 5. In Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1, the Constitution Bench analyzed the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and while holding that registration of FIR is mandatory for a police officer whenever he receives an information regarding commission of cognizable offence in view of the language employed in Section 154 of Cr.P.C., set apart certain category of cases where preliminary inquiry is permissible. The relevant conclusions given in Para-120 are extracted hereunder: “120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 5 120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. If must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.” 6. The above observations make it abundantly clear that whenever a police officer receives any complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, he shall register FIR and in such situation no preliminary inquiry is permissible. 7. The observations and findings in Lalitha Kumari’s case nowhere enunciate a ratio decidendi that the person aggrieved can avail writ remedy bypassing the alternate efficacious remedy provided in CrPC and what was stated therein is that whenever a police officer receives any complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, he shall register FIR without making any preliminary inquiry. Therefore, the said decision cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner in the given set of facts. 8. This Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari’s case (supra1) and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. 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. 6 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATAJYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 23.09.2025 SNI 7 643 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.3748 of 2025 Dated: 23.09.2025 SNI