High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prqying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to' issue a writ or direction more particutarly one in the nature of wRlT OF MANDAMUS declaring the actions of the Sth and Tthrespondents in colluding with the 8th and 9th respondents and threatening the petitioner to withdraw the civil suit filed against them and refusing to register FIR against the gt1 and 9th . i:i,.''i respondents based on report of the petitioner dated 30-7-2017 and also the inaction of the 4th respondent in initiating action against the sth and 7th respondents for non-registration of FIR and representation daterd 3-g-2017 as illegal' unco'tstitutional and violation of Articres 14, 21 and constitution of rndia and consequently direct the Sth respondent to register FrR based on the report of the petitione" dated 3o-7-2017 and arso direct the 4th respondent to initiate action againsr the 6th and 7th respondents for tneir ittegar acts. l.A. NO 1 oF 20 oF 20 7 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 preased to direct the 6th ernd 7th respondents not to harass the petitioner and interfere in civir disputes be'tween him and the gth and gth respondents. l.A. No: 2oF 20 17(WPMP OF 2017l Petition utlder section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fir-'d in support of the,petition, the High court may be preased to j::r_t,:,re:;pondent to resister FtR based onthe report or the petitioner :l:: ;;l counser for the p*titioner: REp. FoR sRr K.s.MuRTHy Counsel for the Re,sponrlent No.1 to 5: SRI D.PRADEEP, AGp FOR HOME The Court made th,g following: ORDER ',NDARE'AN, sRr ... .. -**,"i -_i./1+.,{#r@,"rie:u!Bik*rb,ic:;ri:"+F+i;..i,:j.E*ji.,r-.!-_ .r* t-,\ l^' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI irm PETITION oF' 20L7 ORDER: This writ petition is fired with the following relief: "...issue a writ or direction more particularly ore in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of 6tr. and Tth respondents in colluding with g*, and gth respondents and threatening the petitioner to \'ithdraw the civil suit fired against them and refusing to register FIR against gtt ancl 9rr, respbrldents based on report of the petitioner dated 3o-or-2orr and also the inaction of 4tt'respondent in initiating action against Sth and 7tr, respondents for non-registration of FIR and representation dated o3-o8-2olr as illegal, unconstitutional and violation of Articres 14, 2i and constitution of India and consequently direct Stt respondent to register FIR based on the report of the petitioner dated 3o-oz-2orr and also direct 4tr' respondent to initiate action against 6ft and 7tn respondents for their ilregar acts and pass..." 2' Heard Mr.Sundaresan, learned counser representing Mr.K.S. Murthy, learned counser for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 3' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the petitioner's representations dated 30.or.2oLT and o3'o8'2o17, the respondent porice authorities fa,ed to register a crime/FlR' Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or the ofhcer concerned to ensure registration of the case. 2

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Horne submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case, is not mairrtainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submittinll written complaints dated 3O.O7.2017 and 03.08.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. The legai position gc,verning such matters is well settled. In Sakin Vasu u' state of u.P. & otLrcrs (AIR 2OO8 SC 907]t, the Hon',ble Supreme Courtcatelloricallyheldthatwhenthegrievancepertainstothe failure of tjre police to register a First Information Report (FIR), theproper,:emedyd'oesnotlieininvokingthewritjurisdictionof theHighCcrurtunderArticle226.TheCourtemphasizedthatthe Code of C)riminal Procedure, lg73 ("Cr'P'C'") provides an adequatearr.defficaciousstatutorymechanismtoredresssrrch grievances- /

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the Hon'lole Sullreme Court in subseqrrent jud'gments' Notably' in 3 M.Subramaniamus.s.Janaki&others(AlR2O2OSC387l'a three-Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the remedies provided under the cr.p.c., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court' In light of the settled legal position' and in the absence of 8. any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting intervention by this Court under Article 226, t]ne relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework undertheCr.P.C./BNSSprovidessuflrcientandefficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, r'r'hich the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, if their grievance still survlves g.Accord.ingly,withtheabovenotedliberty,thelvritpetition isdismissedasnotmaintainable.Thereshail!enoorderasto 'cost$., t1 MiscellaneousPetitions,pendingifany,shallstandclosed To, /TRUE COPYII S BHAVANI S TANT REG OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI K S.MURTHy, Advocate [OpUC] 2. Two CCs to G! FOR HOME, High Court for Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies of Telangana at BSR BS PM&. HIGH COURT DATEtt: 2111112025 f // / ORDER WP.No.29704 of 2011 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT M,AINTAINABLE, WITHOUT COSTS 6 2-5\r^?4 16n [fl 202$ *