APHC010412382026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22388 OF 2026 Between: 1. SHAIK KHAJA PEER, S/o Shaik Raheem, Aged about 54 Years, Occ Car Driver, R/o House No. 350, New Water Tank, Angallu, Kurabalakota Mandal, Annamayya District ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District.(522238) 2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh State, Office at Mangalagiri, Guntur District (522502) 3. The Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District at Madanapalle. (516269) 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District at Madanapalle. (516269) 5. The Circle Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluk Police Station, Annamayya District. (517235) 6. The Station House Office, Mudivedu Police Station, Annamayya District. (517350) ...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 to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS 2 declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not initiating further steps in registering the F.I.R and conducting investigation upon the petitioners complaints, Dt. 17.02.2026 Dt.23.07.2026 in spite of repeated requests, though there are cognizable offences, as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgment in Lalita Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh, rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India and consequently direct the Respondents, to take action by registering the F.I.R on the petitioners complaints, Dt. 17.02.2026 Dt.23.07.2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Respondents, to take action by registering the % F.I.R, on the petitioner’s complaints, Dt. 17.02.2026 Sc, Dt. 23.07.2026, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon’ble court, Counsel for the Petitioner: SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22388 of 2026 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 declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not initiating further steps in registering the F.I.R and conducting investigation upon the petitioners complaints, Dt. 17.02.2026 Dt.23.07.2026 in spite of repeated requests, though there are cognizable offences, as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgment in Lalita Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and consequently direct the Respondents, to take action by registering the F.I.R on the petitioners complaints, Dt. 17.02.2026 Dt.23.07.2026 and pass” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of Respondent/State and perused the material placed available on record. 4 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 this Court dated 23.07.2026 in WP No.18425 of 2026, wherein this Court appreciated the facts and law by taking into 5 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, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798 6 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. 7 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: 02.09.2026 KRK 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 108 WRIT PETITION NO: 22388 of 2026 Date: 02.09.2026 KRK