Mr. Lohith Kada, learned counsel representing Mrs v. Vijaya

5. Sri. V. Ramulu Aged'about 62 Petitioners No R/o. H.No. 3 Hayatnagar

6. Sri. V.N Aged about 75 R/o.Torqui Ranga Reddy I

1. The State of Rep. by ils Home Department Secretariat,.

2. The Rachakonda Gachibowli, Hyderabad: ...Petitioners lr, J. ,: r 'of Police

4. Station' Houqp "Offieer Rar:.ea Reddv District. Commissionera te .l i '! ji' '! I i i .i i i Diqtrict. . '-t Divisionat Officer' at Thurkayamjal District. Mandal District. .\ District Village Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. tham Venkat Reddy S/o. K.Sathi Reddy 7O years, Occ: Agriculttrrq pally Village Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. , o. K.Jacob Agriculture Hayatnagar Mandat District. about 51 ye O. NSR N Occ: Business agar Colony, Ragannaguda Village Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. i:' It" ! . t l; i t I i ,i l i; .': L, ' -': '-- '.:" 1 -';. -,.. ... -l petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fibd therewith, the High Gourt may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more partianlarly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not taking any action against the resp$ndents No.9 to 12 wl ts No.9 to 12 who threatened and illegally dispossessed the petitioner:s by trespassing into their land in Sy.Nos- 269,270, ZT3, 274, 275 and 295 total ,dr"".rring Ac.5-20 gts situated at Torrur Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by considering the representations dated- 13.1.2017 as bad, arbitrary, illegal, Unconstitutional and violation of Principles of Natural Justice an-d. consequently direct the respgndents No.2 to 4 herein to take necessary action against the respondents, No.9 to 12 by consid e ri ng the petitio ne rs represe ntations d ate d' 1 3.7 .2017 . a ,',-. ,i,i;, . i 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 .t direct the 8th respondent not to entertain and register any- docurnent in respect of , ,lthe lands in Sy.Nos. 269, 270,273,274,275 and 295 totat .dr"".rting Ac.S- 20 '. i.., ,- :.lgts situated at Torrur Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, RarEa Reddy District, pending t! , . disposal of the above writ petition. lCounsel for the Petitioner : SRI LOHITH KADA, reP., Mrs.V.V|JAYA SREE counsel for the RespondentsiNo.lto4 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.Sto8: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:I0RDER / f,:ar:,: ./ (.' t.; THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT No.32791 oF 2017 ORDER.: Tlris Writ Petition is filed with the foHowing relief: "7b lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particulafly one in the nature of Wrrt of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not taking any action against the respondent Nos.9 to 12 who threatened and illegally dispossessed.the petitioners by trespassrng into their land in S.rr. Nos.269, 270, 273, 274, 275 and 295 total admeasuing A,t.5.20 gts. situated at Torrur village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by consideing the representations dizted 13,07.2017 as bad, arbitrary, iltegal, unconstitutional and viotation of pinciples of natural iustice and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein to fa,ke necessary action against respondent Nos'9 to 12 by considering the petitioners representations dated 1.3,07.2017 ........',

2. Mr. Lohith Kada, learned counsel representing Mrs. V. Vijaya $ree, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions, as the respondent police authorities failed to register a crime pursuant to the petitioners' representation dated 21.09.2017.

3. Learned Counsel further submits that prior to filing the presenl petition, the petitioners had approached the Deputy I 2 Commissioner of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, on 13.07.2017. Despite such representations and endorsements thereon, respondent No. 4 failed to registei any , crime. Hence, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court for registration of the same. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that no crime has been registered as the petitionerc did not cooperate with the police authorities during the preliminary inquiry. He further contends that the relief sought in this writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authoritier'to'qirter a criminal case, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. 6. The essence of the petitioners' grievance is that the I have perused the material available on record. , respondent police authorities failed to register a crime on the basis of their representation. However, as per the exptanation offered by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the police authorities have acted within the scope of their jurisdiction and discretion. Nevertheless, since the petitioners continue to remain *>- 3 aggrie\red by the alleged inaction, it becomes necessary to consider the maintainability of the present petition. 7. lt is a well-established principle of law that a writ petition under r\rticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a direction for regiistration of a crime simpliciter, is not maintainable where efficaei,cus and adequate statutory remedies are availabte under the Code_ of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now replaced by the Bharatiya N agai k Suraksha San h ita, 2023 (BNSS) 8. ltr .M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AtR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Sakrn Vasu v. Sfafe of IJ.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), holding that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked as a substitute for the remedies expressly provided under the Code. The prrrper @urse for an aggrieved person, in case of non- registration of a complaint, is to invoke the remedies available under Sections 154(3), 156(3), or 200 of the Cr.P.C. I correspr)nding provisions under the BNSS. 9. ln view of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting the exerciser of this Court's writ jurisdiction, the prayer of the f I \ t:.. 4 petitioners is held to be not maintainable. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be at tiberty to avail appropriate remedies available to them under law, should their grievance still subsist.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Misoellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall stand closed. sD/- A. ASSISTANT ,/TRUE GOPY// To,

1. One CC to Mrs.V.V|JAYA SREE, Advocate' {OPUCI 2. Two GGs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl

4. Trruo CD CoPies BSK PVLw HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 { .iriE SI,1 -t C () 2 t JAt{ 20m + .7': r i- ) ORDER WP,No.3il791 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION JrcS n /'f-a