The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that deliberate inaction by police in registering a criminal complaint constitutes a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment underscores the mandatory duty of law enforcement to act promptly on complaints involving cognizable offences, regardless of procedural delays.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tholem Lovarevathi, wife of Simhachalam, filed a written complaint on 19.01.2026 with the Thondangi Police Station, KakINada District, alleging criminal misconduct by an individual. The complaint sought action under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the Station House Officer (Respondent No.4) and the Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Circle (Respondent No.5), failed to register a First Information Report (FIR) for over six weeks.
Key Facts
- The petitioner submitted her complaint in writing on 19.01.2026 at Thondangi Police Station.
- No FIR was registered within the statutory timeframe or any reasonable period thereafter.
- The petitioner filed this writ petition on 15.03.2026, citing inaction as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
- The complaint pertained to alleged offences under Sections 74, 115(2), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), all of which are cognizable offences requiring mandatory FIR registration.
- No written explanation or justification was provided by the police authorities for the delay.
Procedural History
- 19.01.2026: Petitioner files written complaint at Thondangi Police Station.
- 15.03.2026: Writ Petition No. 7511/2026 filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking mandamus for FIR registration.
- 21.03.2026 at 09:00 PM: Respondents, under court proceedings, belatedly register Crime No. 54 of 2026 under the BNS provisions cited in the complaint.
- 23.03.2026: Hearing before Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; petition still pending adjudication.
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No.4 and 5 to:
- Declare their inaction as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21;
- Immediately register an FIR;
- Conduct a fair and lawful investigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the persistent failure of police authorities to register an FIR in respect of a cognizable offence, despite a clear complaint, amounts to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel registration.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. V. Venkata Durga Rao, argued that:
- Under Section 154 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), registration of an FIR is mandatory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence.
- Delay in registration, especially for over six weeks, amounts to denial of justice and violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh held that FIR registration is not discretionary but a statutory duty.
- The inaction also violates Article 14 by treating complainants unequally and arbitrarily.
For the Respondent/State
The Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, conceded that the FIR was registered belatedly on 21.03.2026, but did not contest the illegality of the delay. No substantive defence was offered to justify the six-week inaction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the delay in registering the FIR was neither explained nor justified. The fact that the FIR was eventually registered only after the writ petition was filed indicates a pattern of non-compliance with statutory obligations. The Court relied on the binding precedent in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, which unequivocally held that registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence.
"The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to effective access to justice, and the failure to register an FIR in cognizable cases is a direct denial of that right."
The Court further noted that the offences alleged under the BNS are serious and fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, where police have no discretion to refuse registration. The delay, even if remedied belatedly, had already caused prejudice to the petitioner’s right to timely investigation and justice.
The Court emphasized that the State’s duty to protect citizens under Article 21 is not contingent upon litigation. The registration of the FIR on 21.03.2026, while technically compliance, does not absolve the authorities of their prior dereliction.
The Verdict
The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that Respondents No.4 and 5 shall give a logical and lawful conclusion to Crime No. 54 of 2026 within 60 days from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
FIR Registration Is Non-Discretionary
- Practitioners must immediately move for mandamus when FIRs are not registered within 24 - 48 hours for cognizable offences.
- Delay beyond 7 days without justification constitutes prima facie violation of Lalita Kumari and Article 21.
- Courts will not accept belated registration as a cure for prior inaction; the delay itself is actionable.
State Accountability Is Non-Negotiable
- Police officers cannot evade responsibility by claiming "administrative delay" or "pending verification".
- Written complaints must be treated as formal information under Section 154 BNSS; oral complaints are not required for mandatory registration.
- Failure to register an FIR may attract departmental action and contempt proceedings if repeated.
Judicial Remedy Is Accessible and Effective
- Writ petitions under Article 226 remain a viable and expedient remedy for FIR-related inaction.
- Courts will not require complainants to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the High Court in such matters.
- The burden of justifying delay lies entirely on the State; silence is not an answer.
