The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that once police register an FIR on the basis of a complainant’s representation, a writ petition seeking such registration becomes infructuous. This judgment upholds established precedent and confirms the limited scope of Article 226 intervention in such circumstances, serving as binding precedent within Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/8389/2019 of S.Khamar Basha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR APHC010194242019 |
| Date of Registration | 03-07-2019 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | Justice B V L N Chakravarthi |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Justice B V L N Chakravarthi) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Constitutional Law (Article 226) |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ relief is maintainable when police register FIR on representation |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the writ petition seeking a direction to register an FIR becomes infructuous once the police have registered the case based on the petitioner’s representation. Since the relief claimed has already been granted by the action of the police, there is no cause for further judicial intervention. The court thus disposed of the writ petition as infructuous and provided no further directions. No costs were imposed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the police to register a case against the 4th respondent based on a complaint dated 15-06-2019. The State informed the court that a case had already been registered under Crime No.175 of 2019 for offences under Sections 188, 294B, 506 r/w 34 IPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, in cases of similar factual circumstances |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that a writ petition or application under Article 226, seeking direction to police for registration of FIR, becomes infructuous if the police have subsequently registered the FIR on the complainant’s representation.
- No further judicial order will be issued in such cases; the petition will be dismissed as infructuous.
- Lawyers should verify whether the grievance has been redressed by subsequent police action before seeking judicial intervention.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner alleged police inaction regarding registration of a case on a specified complaint and sought a writ of mandamus.
- The State’s Additional Government Pleader, on written instructions, submitted that the police had already registered FIR (Crime No.175/2019) pursuant to the petitioner’s representation.
- The court found that, as the particular relief sought (FIR registration) had already been achieved, the writ petition had become infructuous.
- Therefore, the court held that no further orders were necessary and dismissed the petition as infructuous, closing all pending interlocutory applications.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a writ of mandamus declaring police inaction in registering a case based on complaint dated 15-06-2019 as illegal and arbitrary.
- Prayed for a direction to the respondent police to register a case against the 4th respondent and relatives.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted that, based on the petitioner’s representation, a case has already been registered under Crime No.175/2019 for offences under Sections 188, 294B, 506 r/w 34 IPC and is under investigation.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a complaint dated 15-06-2019, alleging actionable conduct against the 4th respondent and his relatives. The grievance before the court was the non-registration of an FIR by the respondent police. While the petition was pending, the police registered Crime No.175/2019 on the complaint, enumerating offences under Sections 188, 294B, 506 r/w 34 IPC, and began investigation.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner relied upon the writ jurisdiction to seek a mandamus against police inaction.
- Sections 188, 294B, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code: Offences cited in the subsequently registered FIR.
- The court confined itself to assessing whether judicial intervention was warranted under Article 226 when the relief claimed was already granted via police action.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations were introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows existing law regarding the dismissal of infructuous writ petitions when the relief sought has already been granted.