Dr. D. Madhavi v. The State of Telanga

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TARUN RAM AITHAM, REP. :OR SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI, AtI' ,()CATE Counsel for the Respondent No.'l to 3: SRI R.LAXMtKANT|{ FIEDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER -TW ,/ / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.43845 OF 2016 ORDER: This Vrit Petition is filed wrth the following re[ef: "... to issue an appropriate V,rit, Order or Direction, more panicularly one rr the narure of Writ of tr4rn&mus, to declare the action of rhe 3rd Respondent in not aking action on rhe Peritionen repon dt. 25.09.2a16 seeking to tale proper and appropriate action agairst rhe 4rh fuspondent q'ho is her husband creared fake and false M.D. Gcnerel medicine certificates for obtained job as Chief Medical officer and thereby he has drawn salary of Rs.30,000/- pcr rnonth from 01,01 2016 to l1-03-2016 illegally i.e., toally an amount of Ils.90,C00/ by chearing thc officen oI Telangana State Social V'elfare Gumkula Vidyala1a, Masab Tank Hlenbad though he never srudied MIIBS nor lr,{.D. Genenl Medicine and in order to prorcct the fun& o[ Govemmenr as we[ as to save the lives and health of public at large as beins iilegal, arbitnry unconstirurional and violation of Anicle 21 of constitution of India for other reliefs and consequently direct the respondent No. J to forthwith ro tal(e acrion on Petitionen report dt. 25-09-2A16 and pass appropriare orden, and to pass such other onCer or or,Cen as this Honble C-oun decms fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...... " 2 Fleard Mr.Tamn Ram Aitham, Ieamed couruel representing Mr.Pulla Rao Yellanki, leamed counsel for the petitioner and lv{r.Rlaxmihnth Reddy, leamed fusistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to J.

3. The leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit, pursuanr to rhe represenrarion darcd25.09.2015, the police failed to - register a Crime/FIR Consequently, counsel pra)E for the issuance 2 of an appropriate direction ro the Superintendent r { Police or the \ officer concemed to ensure registration of the case

4. The learned Assistant Govemment Pleac:r for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ pe ition- namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a t: urlinal c:rse- $ not maintanable under Article 226 of the Constinr L,rn of India, in viex, of the well-senled legal position laid down ry the Flon'ble Supreme C-oun. 5 6 I have carefullyperused the materials placed ::r record. The grievance of the petitioner, in substanct is that despite having wrinen complaint dated 25.09.2016, the ,: ,ncerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved bysr ch inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of rl i; Court u.nder Article 226 of the Corstirution of India, sc,: jng a writ of mandamtx directing the police authorities ro regist, .-a crime. 7 The iegal position governing rrntters of dL; nature rs well semled ,nd no longer res integra. In Sakii l/asa t. .l'tate of'tt.P. dt , ,t- J I I I Othen (AIR2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically heid that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a Fint Information Report (FIR), rhe remedy of approaching the Flgh Coun turder Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that rhe Code of Criminal Procednre, 1973 ("G.P.C") provides an adequate and efficacioru statutory f ramework to addres s s uc h grievances. 8 This pnnciple has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, n ll. Sabntntunian t.,. S Janaki dz Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified rhat the proper course for an aggrieved parry is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C rather than directly rnvoking the writ jurisdiction of the { ( f F[gh Court. 9 In light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinaqy circumstances that rvould warant intervention by this Court under futicle 226, the relief sought by 4 : ;'j the petitioner cannot be entertained. The st, utory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies befor-'the comperent MagLstratc, and the petitioner is at liberryto pursL( ;uch rerledies in accordance wrth law, should his gdevance still sut sist.

10. Accordrngly, the writ peririon $ disrr i:;sed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall s and closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. I REENIVASA REDDY AS: S;TANT,BEGISTRAR secffiru oFFtcER To, l One CC to SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocate [OF'l C] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the I tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies BSR TJ (5{ HIGH COURT DATED:1710912025 ORDER WP.No.43845 of 2016 ,/(ci ()+' () 11 * l) S Irl I I i,:rTrlu :'*--:-. ':- a) -\: * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, WITHOUT COSTS t\,o/q\