Mrs.Sumaina Sharfi, Wo v. The State of Telangana

8. The lnspector of Police, Women Police Station, DD. CCS Hyderabad 9. Mrs.Himmat Khatoon @ Siraj, W/o.Adil Ali Khan Aged about 55 years - ^. . " oii,,'d:rl'ir, Mi,giC Brsiftii-tiv runnins a Darbar. Rvb H ruo s-3-164/c/26' old F;;i 5t+;; Fi;;l-, opp t-i[te Ftower sihool, Vikaspuri Erragadda' Hvderabad 10.Mr.Adil Ali Khan @ lrrtohammed Haseeb Tahir, S/o Mohammed Tahrr' Aged . '" ;ffit ib ;;;8. d6c: eusi;;si, nvo.u.ruo.a-3-164tct26' old Post office Road' Opp Littidftowbr Sctpol, Vkaspuri, Enagadda, Hyderabad llMr.SvedOasim.S/o.SvedTaher,RyoH.NoE-3-1641C126'OldPostOffice ' ' ii;"?,-opp Liliie Frow,i,'s.n*l' Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hvderabad '- 6ii'A i,il, 'o# l2.Mr.SvedHashamTaha,S/o.SyedTaher,RJoHNoS-3-164/C/26'OldPost litite Fio*eischool, Vikaspuri, Erragadda' Hvderabad : : i I i t I t I 1 I I - poli Offic" ioio, opp f-ittfe F6wer School, Vi(aspuri, E:r agadda' Hyderabad l3.Mr.MohammedFazullahFeroz'S/o.Notknown,Fyo'HN('8-3-164/C/26'Old 14.Mrs.Sara Jabeen, W/o.Not known, Rl/o.H.No.8-3-1641Ct2 i, Old Post Office ii"io-,bpp Littte Ftower sctrool, Vikaspuri, Enagadda, l1 derabad

15.Mr.owais Talib, S/o.Mohammed Fazullah Feroz, Fl/o.H.l. o.8-3-164/C/26' old '- F;;t iiff,;" nodo, opp Littte rower School, Vikaspuri, l: ragadda, Hvderabad 16.Miss Sana Mohammedi, D/o. Mohammed Fazullah-Fenr , Ri/o'H No-8-3- - ioa7cl2o, old post office Road, opp Little Flower Schtx l, Vikaspuri, Enagadda, Hyderabad 1 7 ttilr.sved Saleemuddin Khizar, S/o.Not known, Fl/o.H.No l-3-164/C/26, Old '' i;..-i'om* n"ro, opp t itte Flower School, Vikaspuri, i ragadda, Hyderabad lS.MissAnees,D/o.Notknown,FI/o.H.No.8-3-lillc,l26,ClPostOfficeRoad' - Fiower School, Vikaspuri' Enagadda, Hydera! ad Opp f-ittf " ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnrl , praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tht: High court may be pleased to rssue a writ, order or Direction more particularl one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the official [l :spondent Nos.1 to 6 more parlicularly the Respondent No.6 in not registering FIF against the unofficial Respondent Nos.9 to 18 in pursuance of the Petitioners w itten complaint dt.07- o3-2O17 as well as the Respondent No.S is interfering Lighhandedly into the investigation, despite the liberty was given by this Hon'ble ( ourt in w.P.No.46154 of2016on21-o2-2olZtolodgecomplaintbeforetheRespondentNo.6as arbitrary, discriminatory, highhanded and ex-facie illegal, rereliction of duty and also violation of Article '14 of constitution of lndia and cons,t quently may drrect the Respondent No 6 to register FIR against the Unofficial Res rondent Nos.g to 18 in pursuance of the Petitioners written complaint dt.07-03-, ( 17 with an immediate effect, in the interest of iustice l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 11308 0F 2017) Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the , ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court r ay be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to lake necessary action by reg s.ering FIR against the Unofficial Respondent Nos.9 to 18 in pursuance of 1 le Petitioner's written complaint dt.07-03-2017 with an immediate effect, in the it erest of justice pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAZIR AHMED KHAN(NONE APPEARED) Counsel for the Respondent Nos,,1 to 8: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 18:--' The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I I I I i i i . THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKAR \MJI WRIT PETITI oN No.9t3t ot2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: ". ..to lssue a writ, order or direction, more patTicularll 'ns in the nalure of Wit ol Mandamus, action of the O't;ial Respondent Nos. 7 to 6 more pafticularly the Respot( ent No.6 in not registering FIR against the Uno'l :ial Respondent /vos.g to 18 in pursuance of the Petitiot ers written complaint dt.07.03.2017 as well as the Respondent No.s is inteieing highhandedly into the investigatiotl despite the libeiy was given by this Hc'r 'ble Couft in WP No.46154 of 2016 on 21.02.2017 to c lge comptaint before the Respondent No.6 as arb,t lry' discriminatory highhanded and exfacie illegal deret lion of duty and also violation of Atticle 14 of Constitut,c 1 of lndia and consequenlly may direct the Respondent t lo.6 to register FIR against the unofficial Respondent Nos 9 to 18 in pursuance of the Petitioners wriften contr aint dt.O7 03 2017 with an immediate effect in the intere'l of justice and may pass such other order....."

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleil ler for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to B

4. The learned Asststant Government Pleader frl Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, nam€ y, a direction to lhe police aulhorities to register a criminal c:lse is rot maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitutiorr of lndia, in view c'the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour

5. I have examined the material available on recor I \i\ )

6. The grievance o( the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submitting a written comptaint date d 07.03.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of rnandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime. 7 . The legal position governing such matters is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakm Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Suprerne Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the polioe to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides a comprehensive and efficacious statutory mechanism to address such grievances.

8. This principle has been consistently reiterated in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v S. Janaki & Olhers (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved person lies within the framework of the Cr.P,C., including recourse to the Magistrate under Sect'rons 156(3) or 200 CrPC-' \ ,) rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Higt Court at the threshold. L ln view of the above authoritative pronouncem3 tts, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstar ces warranting interference by this Court under Article 226, the relitl sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory sctL( me under the Cr.P.C. provides adequate and efficacious remedi :s before the competent Magistrate, and it is always open to the pt titioner to avail such remedies in accordance with law, should his grier tnce persist.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as n, t maintainabJe There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall strr rd closed SD/. AHIVII ,D ABDULLA KHAN ASSII TANT REGISTRAR ,/-: \--t+' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CC to Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan' Advocate [OPUC] 2.TwoCCstoGPforHome,HighCourtfortheStateof.I:langana,at Hyderabad [OUT] t \

3. Two CD CoPies TJ GJP I'W t HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER WP.No.9131 o12017 \ t1 j i ,rN 2t2d ( O i!. ;l- .'/ .'/'/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 01 1r' 17