APHC010653662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34039 OF 2025 Between: 1. Jasti Rajesh Kumar,, S/o. Shivaji, Aged about 46 Years, Occ Business, R/o. D. No. 60-8-5, 5th Line, Siddartha Nagar, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada City, NTR District. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Commissionerof Police, Vijayawada City, NTR District. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Vijayawada City, NTR District. 4. Inspector of Police, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, NTR District. 5. Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, NTR District. 2 6. S Bharani, W/o. Narentheran, Aged about 33 years, Occ VDMD, Sports authority of Andhra Pradesh, Indira Gandhi Municipal Stadium, M.G Road, Vijayawada City, NTR District. 7. N Suguna Reddy, , W/o. N. Dipak Reddy, Aged about 35 Years, Occ President Fencing Association of Andhra Pradesh, R/o. ADB Road, Samalkot Highway, Unduru, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 8. Gunnam Satya Venkata Krishna Mohan, S/o. Satya Narayana, Aged about 45 Years, Occ Secretary Fencing Association of Andhra Pradesh, R/o. 6-126, Abbayiraju Colony, Pedamiran, Bhimavaram Town, West Godavari District. 9. Nagam Satish Babu, S/o. Late Ramakrishna Babu, Aged about 49 Years, Occ Secretary Fencing Association, Krishan District, R/o. D.No.7-6-28, Karrivari Street, Rama Rao Peta, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 10. Gogulamudi Vijay Kumar, S/o. Venkanna, Aged about 32 Years, Occ Private Employee, R/o. 8, 8 Ward, Pedaavutapalli Village, GannavaramMandal, KrishnaDistrict. 11. Veru Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ Former President, Fencing Association of Andhra 3 Pradesh, R/o. D.No. 42-1-123/1, Turupukammapalem, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of respondents particularly 4th and 5th respondent in not registering crime on my complaint and PGRS Grievance No. NTR202511242776, dated 24.11,2025 against the respondents 6 to 11 under the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and on the file of 4th and 5th respondent police station and declare the same as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and un just and amounts to non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on the part of respondents under the provisions of the Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 and amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on the part of respondents under the provisions of the Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the 4 petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased direct the 4th and 5th respondents to register the crime on my complaint and PGRS Grievance No. NTR202511242776, dated 24.11.2025 against the respondents 6 to 11 under the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the interest of Justice, in pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: MUCHAKAYALA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34039 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: Instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents particularly 4th and 5th respondent in not registering crime on my complaint and PGRS Grievance No. NTR202511242776, dated 24.11,2025 against the respondents 6 to 11 under the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and on the file of 4th and 5th respondent police station and declare the same as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and un just and amounts to non- discharge of legal obligation conferred on the part of respondents under the provisions of the Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 and amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on the part of respondents under the provisions of the Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and to pass”. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of 6 Respondent/State and perused the material placed available on record. 3. Conspectus of facts in the present Writ Petition is that, despite the petitioner’s complaint to the police personnel, the respondent police are not acting upon the same by registering an FIR, thereby lodging criminal proceedings. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing on the written instructions of the Respondent/Police, submits that preliminary enquiry of the police reveals that the petitioner’s complaint does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. As such, Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. 5. Now, coming to the central issue in the lis, despite the petitioner’s complaint, the police are not registering an FIR; the aggrieved party directly initiating proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. In this juncture, it is appropriate to note that the issue involved in the present lis, is squarely covered by the Order of 7 this Court dated 23.07.2026 in WP No.18425 of 2026, wherein this Court appreciated the facts and law by taking into consideration of the dictums laid down by the Apex Court including latest expression held in Sujal Vishwas Attavar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others1, wherein it was held as under: “7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise. 8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798 8 recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS. 9. xxxx. 10. xxxx. 11. The High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against a statutory authority. Ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction [See: Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra)]. In the present facts, the complainant Company has not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies available under BNSS. There is, therefore, no foundation to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the reason that efficacious and efficient alternative remedies exists. Hence, at this stage, we find the instant writ petition to be premature, and, therefore, not fit to be entertained.” 7. Accordingly, by applying the above ratio to the present case too, this Writ Petition is disposed of as under: i) Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional Magistrate by filing appropriate complaint under Section 175(3) and 210 read with 223 of BNSS, 2023. 9 ii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and whether or not the complaint discloses criminal offences. iii) Equally, it will be open to all the stakeholders to avail remedies in terms of the statutory realm.” There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Registry is directed to append a copy of the Order of this Court dated 23.07.2026 in WP No.18425 of 2026 along with the instant order. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.08.2026 KRK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34039 of 2025 Date: 25.08.2026 KRK