The High Court · 2025

6. Mr.Shaik Zakir, S/o. Late Shaik Azeem Aged about 41 years, Occ Business, Rl/o.H.No.8-3-668/1/1 0, Jayaprakash Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

7. tvlr.Shaik Arshad Taher, S/o.Late Shaik Taher, Aged about 22 years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.20-4-1041212, Panch l/ohalla, Beside Charminar Stand, Hyderabad B. Mr.lr/ujahid, S/o.Ahmed Hussain, Aged about 45 years, Occ Business, Rl/o.Bandlaguda, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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 Official Respondent Nos.1 to 3 more particularly the Respondent No.3 in not considering the Writ Petitioners written representation dt. 13-04-2017 as well as not providing police protection to Petitioner and his family members against the Unofficial 'Respondent Nos.6 to B, despite crimes are pending against them in FIR No.652 of 2O16 dt.20- 09-2016 before the Respondent No.4 herein and in FIR No.288 of 2017 before the Respondent No.5 herein, besides the fact that both the said police stations are neither completing the investigation nor filing their Charge Sheets for the reasons best known to lhem, as arbitrary, discriminatory, highhanded and ex-facie illegal, dereliction of duty and also violation of Article '14 of Constitution of lndia and consequently may direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the Writ Petitioners written representation dt.13-O4-2O17 by giving him proper opportunity of fair hearing in the interest of justice l.A. NO:1OF 2017(WPMP. l{O: 17964 OF 20171 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 Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in consider and dispose of the Writ Petitioner's written representation dt.13-04- 2017 by giving him proper opportunity of fair hearing, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NAZIR AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6to8: - The Court made the following: ORDER I 7 I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI S7RIT PETITION No.14497 OF 2017 ORDER: This Vrit Petition is filed under Ardcle 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliefls:- "... to issue a 1Writ, Onder or Dtecdon more particularly one in the nature of W'rit of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Official Respondent Nos.1 to 3 more panicuJarly the Respondent No.3 in not considering the Vrit Petitioners N.ritten represernation dt.13-04-2017 x well as not providing police protection to Petitioner and his family members against the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 8, despite crirrrcs are pending agairst them in FIR No.652 of 2016 dr.2$ @-2016 before the Respondent No.4 herein and in FIR No288 of 2017 before the fuspondent No.5 herein, besides the fact that both the said police statiors are neither completing the investigation nor filing their Charge Sheets for the reasons best known rc thern, as arbitrary, discriminatory', highhanded and ex-facie illegal, dereliction of dury and also violation of Anicle 14 of C-orstinnion of India and consequently may direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the Writ Petitionen written representadon dr.l3-04-2017 by grrrg him proper opponuniry of fair hearing in the inrertst of justice..... ."

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, learned fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and ltarned counsel for the unofficial respondenc.

4. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home submitted that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the alleged inaction of the respondents in providing police protection pursuant to-thE representation dated 13.04.2017. He contended that if the I 2 concemed police authorities have not acted upon such representation, the petitioner has effective ahemative remedies available under law. \Without exhausting those remedies, invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not maintainable, as has been cons istently held in j udicial pronouncements.

5. Leamed cou.nsel for the unofficial respondents submined that the petitioner and the unofficial respondents closely related, and several disputes are pending berween thern It was further pointed out that the said disputes are already under adudication before the Gvil Court in O.S. No.196 of 20lt on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, Gty Gvil Court, Hyderabad. The present allegations, according to him, are nothing but an attempt to conveft a civil dispute into a criminal one. In view of the pendency of the civil proceedings, it was submitted that the present cause has become infructuons.

6. I ha-ve perused the materials on record. J

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation seeking police protection has not been duly considered by the concemed police authorities. It is now well setded that in cases where the police fail to take action on a representation or report, the proper course available to an aggdeved penon is to pursue the effective and efficacious remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now replaced by the Bharatja l{agaik Sura,ksha Sanhita, 2023). In particular, remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200 G.P.C (or the corresponding provisions under BNSS) are available to a complainant for seeking appropriate redressal.

8. In the absence of any such recourse being taken, and in the absence of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Coun under Ardcle 226 of the C-onstitution of India is not maintainable. This senled legal position \ \ has been authoritatively laid down and reiterated by the FIon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subrarzaniam u. S. Janaki dy Otbers (AIR 2020 SC 38 7), wherein a Three-Judge Bench categorically held that when .+ rhe grievance relates to the refusal of the police to register a case, rh. Hgh Court should ordinarilydecline to entertain a writ petition nnder Article 226, since adequate statutory remedies exist tnder the G.P.C The principle was earlier recognized n Sakii Vasu a. Sun of U.p. (AIR2008 SC90Z), w'here it was emphasized that Flgh Courts should refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction in such rrnfters, except in rare and exceptiond sfuuatiors.

9. In light of these settled principles, the present writ petition, which challenges the alleged inaction of the respondent/police authorities, is not maintainable. However, the righa of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as provided under law are expressly reserved, should the cause of action still subsist. Accordingly, this writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost-s. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// Sd/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSTSTANT REgISTRAR SECTIOK6FFICER / To, 1 2 3 BSR ?*s 33 Ji"'5i Iffi [ 6il y Hvderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies BM Ft- : ?' [I 3], f fJl ii".tS,'"l?f s a n a a t "' " " HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 ORDER WP.No.14497 of 2017 .-a '-i1 rit SIA r{: oo 0t ft8 2m * t)Esi,,,ilc,} * ':i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tAt