ORDER : This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to issue writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent police on the petitioner’s complaint, dated 28.07.2022, in initiating action to prosecute the respondents No.4 & 8 to 12 in playing fraud against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent/police to prosecute respondents No.4 and 8 to 12. 2. Heard Sri Prasad Babu, the learned counsel representing Sri Md. Saleem Pasha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to3 and Sri S. Satyanarayana Moorthy, the learned standing counsel for the respondents No.4 & 10 to 12. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The writ petitioner herein is a consultant Civil Engineer and Panel Valuer for nationalized banks & NBFCs in Vijayawada. The 10th respondent, the then Deputy Manager, SBI, SME branch, Mangalagiri introduced the 9th respondent and requested to conduct valuation of properties offered by him to obtain credit advances for the 8th respondent firm at various places in and around Guntur. However, the said properties became unfit legally to offer as securities by the end of March-April, 2018. In those circumstances, the 9th respondent requested the petitioner to offer his properties, worth about Rs.2.27 crores as security and entered into an agreement of sale with a condition to execute mortgage deed, dated 01.08.2018 in favour of the 8th respondent for securing term loan of Rs.3.25 Crores and cash credit limit of Rs.1.00 crore by him on 01.08.2018. It is further agreed by the 9th respondent to pay 50% of the sale consideration, i.e., Rs.1.135 crores after 10 days of execution of mortgage at bank and the balance 50% of sale consideration agreed to be paid within five months from 01.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to become a partner of the 8th respondent. The respondents No.4, 10 to 12 made his wife to offer her securities to be mortgaged and obtained her signatures. Thus, the total loss caused by the respondents No.4, 10 to 12 in collusion with each other to benefit the 9th respondent is about Rs.4.3725 crores. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to become a partner of the 8th respondent. The respondents No.4, 10 to 12 made his wife to offer her securities to be mortgaged and obtained her signatures. Thus, the total loss caused by the respondents No.4, 10 to 12 in collusion with each other to benefit the 9th respondent is about Rs.4.3725 crores. In spite of repeated requests and demands, respondents No.4, 10 to 12 being officials of the bank had failed to discharge their duties and fraudulently helped the 9th respondent and his firm. In those circumstances, the petitioner got issued a notice, dated 25.05.2022, through his counsel demanding compensation and to release the properties mortgaged. The petitioner further lodged a complaint, dated 28.07.2022, with the 3rd respondent police. The main grievance of the petitioner is regarding the inaction of the police on his complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2014) 2 SCC 1 , issued directions at para No.120 of the said decision that if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, FIR must be registered, and if the police officer does not register FIR, action must be taken against the erring officer, and it is mandatory for the police officer to register the FIR on a complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, but, in the present case, since the respondents/ police failed to do so, this Court is empowered to issue writ of mandamus. He further submitted that recently a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, relying on the above decision of the Constitution Bench, in Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others : 2023 Live Law (SC) 639, directed the concerned respondents to proceed further in the complaints in accordance with law since the complaint therein discloses commission of cognizable offence and the names of the offenders. It is also submitted by him that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Government of A.P and others : (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221. 5. It is also submitted by him that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Government of A.P and others : (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that there is no disagreement with the proposition of law in the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner; but, the remedy open to the party aggrieved of the non-registration of FIR is to take recourse to other provisions under the CrPC, i.e., by sending a copy of the complaint to the Superintendent of Police through registered post under Section 154(3) CrPC or by filing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on which the concerned Magistrate can direct registration of FIR and proper investigation to be made. In this regard, he further submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has not directly dealt with the situation when the police fail to register FIR, whereas the same question was decided by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409, and subsequently by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam and Another Vs. S. Janaki and Another : (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 728, the decision of the learned Single Judge of this High Court in Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh : W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch, dated 30.07.2020, was rendered in line with the decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra) by thoroughly considering the decisions of the Supreme Court, including the decision in Lalitha Kumari (supra), and held that writ for a Mandamus in a petition under Section 482 CrPC to direct the police to register an FIR does not lie. He further cited the Division Bench decision of this High Court in Muppidi Nagamani Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh : W.A.No.104 of 2022, dated 01.02.2022 , the decisions of this High Court in Duvvuri Venkata Narayana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : 2020 SCC Online AP 4841, dated 24.11.2020, K.V. Bhaskar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others : 2022 SCC Online 2556, dated 09.11.2022 and Hajimalan S Pathan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : 2020 SCC Online AP 4841, dated 24.11.2020, K.V. Bhaskar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others : 2022 SCC Online 2556, dated 09.11.2022 and Hajimalan S Pathan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : W.P.No.10210 of 2023, dated 03.05.2023 . 6. In A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra), it was held at para No.38 as follows: “38. The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a competent Court of Law after hearing the parties and an order is passed in favour of the applicant/plaintiff which is upheld by all the courts including the final Court. Let us also think of a case where this Court does not dismiss Special Leave Petition but after granting leave decides the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can truly be said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies. Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets attracted. All orders passed by the courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the order.” 7. In Lalita Kumari (supra), it was held at para No.120 as follows: “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” 8. In Chegireddy Venkat Reddy (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari (supra), Sakiri Vasu (supra), Sudhir Bhaskararao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwan Dhage and others : (2016) 6 SCC 277 , All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union Vs. Union of India : (1996) 11 SCC 582 , M. Subramaniam (supra), Priyanka Srivastava Vs. Hemant Yashwan Dhage and others : (2016) 6 SCC 277 , All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union Vs. Union of India : (1996) 11 SCC 582 , M. Subramaniam (supra), Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. : (2015) 6 SCC 287 , in the light of the well settled principles of precedents and concluded as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in Lalitha Kumari (supra) that registration of FIR is mandatory, but, in case, police did not register the FIR, the remedy open is to approach the Magistrate under the provisions of CrPC only. 9. In Duvvuri Venkata Narayana (supra), the learned Single Judge, agreeing with the decision in Chegireddy Venkata Reddy (supra), further dealt with the concept of sub-silentio in relation to the present issue in the decision in Lalitha Kumari (supra) by referring to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Fr. Sebastian Vadakkumpadan Vs. Shine Varghese : (2008) 2 SCC 409 , wherein at Para 56, held as below: “56. Lalita Kumari, however, had no occasion to consider the issue we have now been confronted with: The alternative statutory remedies available to a complainant after the police’s refusing to register an FIR. So we may safely conclude that Lalita Kumari does not obliterate, as it were, the alternative statutory remedies available to the aggrieved complainant.” Thereafter, it is concluded at para 10 as follows: “10. Thus, from the above jurimetrical jurisprudence, the law is clear to the effect that in view of the availability of efficacious and alternative remedy under Section 154(3) CrPC on one hand and Section 190/200 CrPC on the other, the petitioners cannot insist that this Court should invariably exercise its plenary writ jurisdiction to issue directions to the concerned police to register the FIR. On the other hand, the petitioners if so advised they can avail the alternative remedy as provided in Cr.P.C.” 10. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this High Court in Muppidi Nagamani (supra), when a learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.10084 of 2021 filed for the same relief, declined to entertain the appeal and dismissed the writ appeal, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra). 11. In K. V. Bhaskar Vs. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this High Court in Muppidi Nagamani (supra), when a learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.10084 of 2021 filed for the same relief, declined to entertain the appeal and dismissed the writ appeal, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra). 11. In K. V. Bhaskar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the learned Single Judge, after thorough reference to several decisions on this aspect already stated, concluded at paras 29 and 30 as follows: “29. To sum-up, writ for a mandamus or even a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct police to register an F.I.R. or a Zero F.I.R. is not maintainable. The aggrieved person has to avail his remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. 30. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail his remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. No costs.” 12. The decision in Hajimalan S Pathan (supra), was authored by me in line with the above decisions. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Sindhu Janak Nagargoje (supra) has followed the decision of the Constitution Bench and has not specifically dealt with the question decided in Sakiri Vasu (supra) and later decision in M. Subramaniam (supra), nor were these decisions dealt with. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the remedy open to the petitioner is to take recourse under other provisions of the CrPC and not by seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.