The legal position on this issue is well settled and in Sakrr Vasu v. State of U.P. Ofhers

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 3Td respondent in not registering the case against the 4th Respondent and their henchmen, basing on the report of the petitioners Dated 2g-11-2017, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural .justice and violative of Article '14,19 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to register the crime against the 4th Respondent and their henchmen, and take necessary action as per law, basing on the complaint of the petitioners, dated. 29-11-2017 by providing prr>tect to the petitioners and their property lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd & 3rd respondents to register the crime against the 4th Respondent and their h,:nchmen, and take necessary action as per law, basing on the complaint o'the petitioners, dated'..29- 11-2017 by providing protect to the petitioners and their properly, forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M. VENKATESH, COUNSEL REPRESENTING FOR SRI CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME Counselfor the Respondent No. 4: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9 75 ot 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the followipg relief: "...fo lssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the ld respondent in not registering the case agarnst the 4th Respondent and their henchmen, basing on the repod of the petitioners Dated 29-1 1 -2017, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Atticle 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to register the crime against the 4th Respondent and their henchmen, and take necessary action as per law, basing on the comptaint of the petitioners, dated. 29-11-2017 by providing protect lo the petitioners and their property and pass......" Heard Mr. M.Venkatesh, learned counsel representing Sri Challa 2 Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, pursuant to the representation dated 29.11.2017, the respondent police authorities have failed to register a crime/FlR, Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the Superintendent of Police or the competent officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to I 't - the police authorities to register a criminal case is not maintainable under Ar:icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-setfled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I hrrve perused thej material placed on record.

6. Thr: grievance of the petitioners, in essence, is that despite having submifted a written complaint dated 29.1 1.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitutirrn of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authoritier; to register a crime.

7. The legal position on this issue is well settled and in Sakrr Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ofhers (AtR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme court catergorically held that where the grievance relates to refusal by the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. lnstead, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (,'Cr.p.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious mechanism to address such grievances. The court emphasized that recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. before seeking intervention under Article 226. 8- This principle has been consistenfly reaffirmed in rater decisions. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 3 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in the event of police inaction, is to avail remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to register an FlR, or initiating proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. The Court clarified that . bypassing these remedies and directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is .impermissible, save in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

9. ln light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any such exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Court finds that the relief sought by the petitioners under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme under the Cr.P.C provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioners are at liberty to pursue those remedies in accordance with law should his grievance still persist.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand.closed. SD/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] l 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana' [OUT] 3. Two CD Cooies HIGH COURT DATED "28110t202s ORDER WP.No.l)75 of 2018 t THE s () * o 3 {rp )rltr ? * DISMISS}ING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS J #