1. The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

                  “…to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus a To Declare that the inaction of Respondent No 3 to 5 by not registering the FIR under Section 173 of the BNSS 2023 based on the Complaint dated 31 12 2025 and subsequently Complaint dated 05 01 2026 having same allegations submitted before Respondent No 2 DGP against the Respondent No 6/Accused despite of disclosure of multiple cognizable offenses is arbitrary illegal void 4 and in contrary to the precedent laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v Govt of U P 2014 2 SCC 1 and State of Haryana v Bhajan La 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 b Consequentially direct the Respondent No 5 to register an FIR against Respondent No 6/Accused and its henchmen and goons based on the Complaint dated 31 12 2025 for the offense under Section 1262 1892 1894 190 3246 3293 35 13 of the BNS 2023 and any other relevant Sections of any other act in force and conduct further investigation strictly in accordance with law and c Pass …”

2. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that during the pendency of this Writ Petition Petitioner No.2/Petta Lakshmana has died. Hence, the Writ Petition against Petitioner No.2 is dismissed as abated.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

4. Sri Prem Kumar Pothina, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioners have submitted a complaint dated 31.12.2025 and another complaint dated 05.01.2026, but those two complaints were not registered as F.I.R by Respondent No.5 even though they disclose commission of a cognizable offence.

5. Per contra, Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions submits that, Respondent No.5 has conducted preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of ‘the BNSS’ and noticed that dispute in between the Petitioners and Respondent No.7 is civil in nature. Therefore, no further action was initiated by Respondent No.5 against anyone. It is further submitted that there were three cases pending against the Petitioners.

6. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy to approach the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of filing a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners to file a complaint before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.