The High Court · 2025

4, The Station House Officer, Habeeb Nagar, Police Station, Hyderabad 5. The Station House Officer, Pahadi Shareef, Police Station, Hyderabad. 6. Smt. Asma Begum, w/o Mohd.saleem Aged about 45 years, occ Housewife. r/o H.No,. 9-183/1 , Shaheen Nagar Wadi-e-Mustafa, Jalpally, Pahadishareef Road, R. R. District.

7. Tahera Begum, w/o Late Shaik Babu, aged About 60 years, occ Housewife, . r/o H.No. 9-'183/1 , Shaheen Nagar Wadi-e-tvlustafa, Jalpally, Pahadishareef Road R R District ...RES,.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent No.2 and 3 herein in not taking action against the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 inspite of the written complaint dt. 8-9-2016 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to act upon the complaint dt. 8-9-2016 and take action against the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein in accordance with Law, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. a l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 49812OF 2016) 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 No.2 and 3 herein to forthwith take appropriate action 7 2 pursuant to the complaint dt. 8/9120'16, pending dispos. of the main Writ Petitio n. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JILANI Counsel for the Respondent no.1 to 5: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH l:EDDy, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent no.6 & 7: --- The Court made the following: ORDER I I i I I THE HONOURABI.F SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 40 4210F 2076 ORDER: This \)frit Petition is filed trnder AnicLe 226 of C-onstitution of India seeking the following reliefr "...t0 isstrc a wil, order or direclion, morc paniu/ar! one in the naltrre oJ Wnt oJ L[andanrus, ftt declare the action of the retpondent Nar2 and i berein in ttot takin3 acion agains/ the rv:pondetl Nos.l to 7 inpite of the wrimn conplaittt dt.08.09.2016 as being i//ega/, arbitrarl' and tritrc/ and conserlaent! dircct tbe respondmt Nos.2 and ) lterein /0 dct ttpufi the nnplaint d/.08.09.2016 anrl t'ake actiott agaiu.t the respondent Nos.l to 7 herein in accordance uith /aw, ard to pass saclt otlter order or orders as tltis Coaft deens ft and proper in the circutnftances of the ray..." 2 No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.Rlaxmikanth Reddy leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

4. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for FIome submits that the subsance of the petitioneds prayer arnounm I t to a request for registration of a criminal case pursuaff to his 2 represenration dared og.og.2o16.It is, however; a well_settled principle of law that a writ petruon under Artic |e 226 of the C-onsdtution of India ca.nnor be maintained r; rlely for the pu{pose of see}ring a direction to register a cr.r rre, without exhaustrng effective and adequate statutor, remedies available under law. 5 I have pen:sed the marerials on record.

6. The petitioner,s grievance is that rhe conce,r ned police authorities failed ro register a case pwsuar t to hrs represenrarions dated 0g.09.2016. The issue rais:d in the Present writ petition is no longer res integra. In J.att:,,i Vasu u. State of U.p. and Orber: (AlR 20Og SC 907), th,=Flon,ble supreme coun categoricaltyheld that where the pol ce fail to register a complaint, the complainant has adequate emedies underthe Code of Giminal procedure, 1973 (G.p.Ot. a 3

7. In such situation, the proper co\rse is to first approach the Superintendent of Police r.rnder Section i5a(3) G.P.C, and thereafter, if necessary, to move the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section i55(3) G.P.C Similar procedural safeguards have now been incorporated in the Bbaratila Nagank Sarafuha Sanhitha (for short, "BNSS). 8 This legal position has been corsistently reaffirmed. In M. Subramaniam u. S. Janaki (AIR 2020 SC 387), the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed solely for the purpose of seeking registration of an FI& is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedies available. Following the same principle, this C-ourt, tn Goaind Raju Sami u. State of Telangano Q)tl SCC Online TS 3a9i), held that such writ petitions are not maintainable without first exhausting the ahemative remedies provided under law. t l l t -r- 9. In iight of these seuled principles, the pr:sent perfuion is held to be not maintainable. However, Iiber y is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedie; before the competent court, in accordance with law.

10. \X[th this observarion, this petition is disrr issed. There shall be no orderas to cosrs. Miscellaneors petitions, pending ,[ *y.sha]l stand closed. I To, //TRUE COPY// sD/-A-H ti if,l+tP8|t+S[ / ,. <1r iECYON OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri Shaik Jilani' Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP For Home' High Court for the State of Te1 lngana [OUTI 3. Two CD CoPies MBC cu( a ,L_ I1i HIGH COURT DATED: 19tOBt2O2S ORDER WP NO.40421 of 2016 I - STri i5 {\ 12( 1 AN 202[ z 6) _>- .l .t r, rl,:- DISMISSING THE WTHOUT COSTS WRIT PETITION a qN \d'pt