The High Court upheld the police’s decision not to register an FIR when a preliminary enquiry found no truth in the complaint, reaffirming the principle that writ relief will not be granted in such circumstances. This decision follows existing precedent and holds binding value for subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/29703/2025 of P AJAY KUMAR Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| CNR | APHC010571072025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent regarding writ relief when police decline to register FIR after enquiry |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct registration of FIR when police, after enquiry, find no truth in the complaint. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that when police, after verification, find that a complaint contains no truth, the refusal to register an FIR cannot be deemed illegal, arbitrary, or unconstitutional. The court noted that the petitioner did not approach the police station in person and only sent the complaint by post. The court recorded the respondents’ submissions that the complaint was found untrue on enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition for mandamus directing police to register an FIR does not lie in such circumstances. The petitioner maintains the liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies before the appropriate forum. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner alleged police inaction in not registering an FIR despite making a complaint dated 15-09-2025 containing allegations of caste abuse, extortion, criminal intimidation, and cyber fraud. The State contended that two criminal cases were already pending against the petitioner, and his complaint was found untrue upon enquiry. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering writ petitions for police inaction on FIR registration |
| Follows | Affirms settled law on non-interference by writ where police find complaint untrue after enquiry |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that courts will not issue writs of mandamus to direct FIR registration where police, after enquiry, find no truth in the complaint.
- Petitioners must exhaust alternative remedies and can approach appropriate forums if aggrieved, but a writ does not lie merely for police inaction supported by verification.
- The sending of complaints by post, without attending the police station in person, may weigh against the petitioner’s bona fides.
- The court will ordinarily defer to police enquiry unless clear arbitrariness or illegality is established.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court took note of the respondent State’s submission that two criminal cases were already registered against the petitioner, and that he lodged a complaint only to overcome these cases.
- The police explained, and the court recorded, that an enquiry was conducted into the petitioner’s complaint, and it was found to be untrue.
- The petitioner had not visited the police station in person and had sent his complaint only by post.
- The court accepted the position that, in view of the lack of truth in the complaint as per police enquiry, no grounds were made out for issuing a writ of mandamus to direct FIR registration.
- The court clarified that the petitioner remains free to exercise remedies before the appropriate forum.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Alleged inaction by police in not registering an FIR on his complaint dated 15-09-2025, despite allegations of caste abuse, extortion, criminal intimidation, and cyber fraud.
- Sought a writ of mandamus to direct the police to register the FIR, investigate under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, and grant protection.
Respondent (State):
- Informed the court of two existing criminal cases against the petitioner in Cr.No.112/2025 and Cr.No.140/2025, under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and IT Act.
- Argued that the complaint filed by the petitioner was just an attempt to counter the criminal cases against him.
- Stated after enquiry, the police found no truth in the petitioner’s complaint, which was why no FIR was registered.
- Noted petitioner did not visit the police station in person, only sending the complaint by post.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging police inaction for not registering an FIR on his complaint dated 15-09-2025, which alleged caste abuse, extortion, criminal intimidation, and cyber fraud. Two criminal cases were already pending against the petitioner. The State contended that the complaint was found untrue on police enquiry, and the petitioner had not appeared before the police but only sent the complaint by post.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment concerned the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding police refusal to register an FIR.
- Provisions discussed include the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, as invoked in the relief sought, but the operative legal reasoning centers on criminal procedure and constitutional writ principles.
- The court analyzed whether mandamus could be issued when police, upon verification, found the complaint untrue; no interpretation or “reading down” of statutes was undertaken.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No individual or separate opinions were recorded; the judgment was delivered by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations were set out in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court affirms existing law that a writ directing FIR registration will not issue where police, after enquiry, find no truth in the complaint.