A single-judge bench consisting of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy gave orders on the writ petition no. 5663 of 2021 in Lingam Seetharamayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks directions against the actions of the police who did not lodge their report as an F.I.R. and the same has not been investigated.
In this case, the Petitioner filed a report in the police station but the police did not lodge the report as an F.I.R. Further, the police did not investigate the matter reported by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the actions of the police, the Petitioners have approached the court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the petition, he seeks directions against the actions of the police for not filing the report as an F.I.R. and also not investigating the matter reported to them.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before the court that directions should be issued against the actions of the police and the report given by the Petitioners should be lodged as an F.I.R. and further investigation must be done.
The learned Government pleader appearing for the Respondents submitted before the court that the matter had already been decided in the earlier judgments and the court should give orders accordingly.
The court analyzed that the legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been settled as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court and the High Court. Now it is a well-settled law that when police fail to register the F.I.R. based on the report that is lodged by any individual disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 read with Section 200 of Cr. P.C. The petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable and in the judgment of Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable.
The Court held that the writ is not maintainable as decided in the earlier cases. So, the writ is dismissed as not maintainable. No orders as to cost have been given and any application pending relation to such writ petition shall also stand closed.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.