APHC010479972022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29173/2022 Between: 1. CHILAKALA SRINIVASULU, S/O LATE SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. COBBLER, PRO. GOWRI FOOTWARES AND MANUFACTURING, D.NO. 1-1, OPP. R AND B GUEST HOUSE, SULLURIPETA TOWN, SULLURIPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI (NEW) RURAL DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, O/O SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, TIRUPATI (NEW) RURAL DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (INCHARGE) O/O SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, GUDURU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SULLURPETA POLICE STATION, SULLURPETA TOWN AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE, (TIRUPATI 2 NEW) DISTRICT. 7. SRI VENKATESWARLU REDDY, S/O NOT KNOWN, OCC. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SULLURUPETA TOWN AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE, (TIRUPATI NEW) 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 respondent No 6 in not registering the FIR pursuant police report of petitioner dated 08.08.2022 under section 3 (1) (ii), (v), (ix),(x), Jxiv), and lxv) of Sc and St atrocities act 1989 besides in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 6 th respondent to register the FIR under section 3 (1) (ii), (v), (ix),(x), (xiv), and (xv) of Sc and St atrocities act 1989 against the respondents no 7 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to direct the 6 th respondent to register the FIR under section 3 (1) (ii), (v), (ix),(x), (xiv), and (xv1 of Sc and St atrocities act 1989 against the respondents no 7 pursuant to the police report dated 08.08.2022 of the petitioner pending disposal of the main Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29173 of 2022 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 respondent No. 6 in not registering the FIR pursuant police report of petitioner dated 08.08.2022 under Sections 3 (1) (ii), (v), (ix),(x), (xiv), and (xv) of Sc and St atrocities act 1989 besides in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 6 th respondent to register the FIR under section 3 (1) (ii), (v), (ix),(x), (xiv), and (xv) of Sc and St atrocities act 1989 against the respondent No. 7 and to pass.…” 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the Police conducted an enquiry on the complaint of the Petitioner and it turned out to be a false complaint. 3. Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that their complaint is against the Circle Inspector of Police and that is why, the Police have not registered the case treating it as false. 4. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a matter relating to the availability of alternate efficacious remedy provided under Cr.P.C instead of writ remedy, in Writ Appeal No.620 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024, held as follows: 4 “16. In Sudhir Bhaskara Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (supra 4) the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-3 the end result in case High Court entertains writ petitions of the similar nature now covered under appeal, held as follows: “3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. ………. “20. 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 appellant in the given set of facts. 21. In view of the above, the learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy available to the writ petitioner is by availing the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but not by way of filing writ petition. The order impugned in this writ appeal requires no interference of this Court. The writ appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.” 5. In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and in view of the availability of the alternate efficacious remedy to the Petitioner, as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment referred to supra, it is apposite to dispose of the Writ Petition. However, the Petitioner 5 is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 22.11.2025. UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.29173 of 2022 Dated.22.11.2025 UPS 162