1. Narsing Rao v. State of Telangana, Rep

24-11-2016 thereby not registering FIR in accordance wi'h law as totally illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and aqainst the provisions contemplated under the lndian Penal Code, Criminal procr;ciure Code. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP . NO: 54516 OF 2016) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cc urt may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to consider the represe rtation made by the petitioners which was received by the Respondent No-l} thereby regrster FIR against the Respondent No.4 pending disposal of above W rit petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI R.LAXMIKANIH REDOy, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N'TUKARAMJI WRITPETITION No. 441970F 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Atlicle 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief : "...to issue an appropriate Writ' Order or D'irection' more pafticularly one in the ,"tu'" oifr)it ot'uuii"^'" declaring the action of the respondent No'3 is ioi' ionsidering the repreientation made by oetitioners whicn wal ;;;;;;;i U-'!" respondent No'3 on with taw as 'inlliiioiuiiii"ov'ii '"Eiiiii'g i.i,yii.-ol;1,1,=X,S"l":**:;'::;ro::",;:i::i:','li":':""#i tinil",lL",.lJlJ,,i,!'i".#';;;;;; ", ch other order or orders" " iy .n,a-cc^Traance

2. Heard Mr.Suresh Shiv Sagar' learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy' learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 3' 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that' pursuant to the representation daled 24J1'2016' the police failed fo register a Crime/FlR due to the undue influence exerted by the then Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA)' Consequently' counsel prays for the issuance of an appropriate direction to the Superintgpdent of Police or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case' 2 -

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for H,:rne submits that filing of writ petition seeking a direction to register a case, is not maintainable as per the settled legal position

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The essence of the petitioners' grievance is tlat the concerned police authorities failed to register a case based on their representation given in the Month of November, 2016 and the said complaint was received by respondent No.3 on 24.11.2016. Consequently, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court under lirticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia to compel the police to register a crime

7. ln this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Sakiri Vasu v. Stafe of U.P. & Others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 907, has laid down that a writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable when the grievance pertains to the non-registration of an FlR, inasmuch as the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) provides ar adequate and efficacious remedy. Following this principle, this Court, in Govind Raju Sami v. Sfate of Telangana, reported in 2019 SC0ifnlrne TS 3491 , reiterated that a petitioner must exhaust the statutory rr;rnedies available under the Cr.P.C (now replaced by the Bharatiya flergarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) before invoking tire writ-iuriSdiction of the High Court.

8. This legal position has been further reinforced by a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, reported in AIR 2020 SC 387, wherein it was clarified that the appropriate remedy in such cases is to approach the Magistrate under the procedure contempiated in law, rather than direcfly invoking the writ jurisdiction.

9. ln view of the settled legal position, the relief sought by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia cannot be entertained, particularly in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances demonstrated in the writ petition. The scheme of law provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioners are at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should the cause of action still subsist. 1 0. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable reserving the right of the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies before , the concerned authority in accordance with law, if any cause still survives. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/..il. JAWAHAR RE AdSISTANT REGIST- DDY SECTION OFFICER To, l One CC to SRI SURESH SHIV SAqlR, Advocate 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at PUC] Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 3 BSR GJP Prn c. I t. HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 ORDER WP.No.44197 of 2016 o: c tiE S -,,r,' c, $ o( 2 ti ilo'J mffi 3 * C; trO ",r.1C d /'i 11:' , DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, WITHOUT COSTS @o^^'a z:'\rr \t(