High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT Between: 1 $fr ,r,H::r::"r,.",:::#tr; ...PETtfloNERS

1. G. Anil Ebene: ;.fl#Efi1ffi;;,Tf, ,:#i#fl AND

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. .RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particutarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 herein in interfering with the life and personal liberty of the petitioners and their famity members without there being any crime registered against the petitioners and also pressurizing the petitioners to settle the alleged issue / dispute with the office bearers of Sth respondent and directing the petitioners to pay back the amount of '2551- to the sth respondent as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and violation Articles 14 and 21 0f the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.6 to inquire into the comptaints dated 2o-1- 2017 and 13-2-2011made by the petitioner No.1. Rs'8'01 f i I l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WpMp. Ng: 6574 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 direct the respondent No-4 and his officials not to interfere with the life and personal liberty of the petitioners and their family members on the alleged complaint given by the office bearers of the Sth respondent pending disposal of the above writ Petition counsel for the petitioners: sRl MD KALEEM pAsHA (Nor PRESENT) counser for the Respondent Nos.l To 4 ,i;i! counsel for the Respondent No.s: - The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FoR HoME il *XMTKANTH REDDy, 't &, I I' + '* * t f+ + + Xt t I THE HONOURABrc SRI TUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER: This \[rit Petition is filed under Article 226 of C-onstitution of India seeking the following reliefls:- o... to issue anyappropriate Vrig Order or direction more-pPnicularlyone in the nanre oi fffo oi t lrrrd"** declaring the action of the respon&nt No.4 herein in interfering with the life and penonal liberty of ..h. petitioners and their f"tily memben without there being any crirrre q.- petitioners to Lgfter"d against the petfuionen and {so -qress.utir"tg r.iL,h. d[g.d issueT dirp* with th9 office bearen of 5th respondent *rJa""q A. petitioners to py back tfie amount of Rs.8,01155/- a the 5th r"s$ode"i as arbirrary, fugrt without iuris{ictign, contrary'. to law *a: riot",i.r" futicles 14 ;d z't of the constinrtion of India and direct the respondent No.6 o inquire into tlre gomplainp "*r.q*rrtly a"*ilOf-iOtZ ,rra6-2-2017 made bythe petitioner No.l and pass s.r6h other order or orders... .'

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

3. I have heard If&.Rla:rmikanth Reddy, leamed fusistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for resPondent Nos.l to 4.

4. The karned Assistant Government Pleader for Ftrome submitted that the respondenr police never interfered with the life or liberty of the petitionels, s alleged in the writ petition' FIe 2 clarified that the petitionen' prcsence was only secured for the purpose of enquiry, pusuant to the police rcport lodged by respondent No. 5, which was rcgistered as Gime No. 102 of 2017. investigation, a charge sheet was tiled, and the maner is before the C-oun of the )trV Chief IVIetro Ivlagistrate, H) C.nbn{ in CC No. 5320 of 2Ot9. He funher submined that although the respondents received complaint dated B.t2.2Ol7 e of a case, no such complaint was in fact registered"

5. I have perused the materials on

6. The contention of the petitioners is tlnt respondent No. 4, the Sradon Ftrcuse Officer, has been interfering wirh rheir Iife and liberry. Flowever, no specific insances of such interference have been pleaded.

7. FLving regard to the setrled principle that the respondents would have no legal justification to interfere with the life and Iiberryof the petitioners, except suictlyin accordance with law, this ( \ 3 C-oun finds it apprcpriate to direa respondent No. 4 not to interfere with the penonal life and libercy of the petitioners. Ordered accorrdingly.

8. Insofar as the grievance rel*i"g to non-registration of a crime is concerne4 fu is to be observed that, in the event of failure on the paft of the respondents to register a case, the petitioners are required to avail themselves of the effective remedies provided under the Code of Giminal Procedure, L973 (G.P.C) /Bhantiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BI.ISS). \flithout exhausting such statutory rcmedies, a direct approach to this Coun under Anicle 226 of the C-onstinrtion of India for issuance of a writ is not maintainable. g. This C.oun, rnGouindRQu Sani a. State of Telangana,20Lg Src Online TS 3491, relying uPon the dicum of the Hon'ble Supreme C-oun n Sakii Vasa t. State of (J.P. and Others, AIR 2OO8 SC 907, has held that unless effecdve alternative remedies available under the Cr.P.C/BI{SS are fint exhausted, invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiaion of this Cout under Anicle 226 of rhe I { 4 ( C-onstitution is improper. This legal position has subsequendy been reiterated and fonified by a three-Judge Bench of the Ftron'ble Supreme Coun n M. Subramaniaru u. S. tanaki,AlR 2020 SC387.

10. In view of the above legal position, the prayer of the petitionen, insofar as it seels a direction to the respondents for registration of a crime, is not rnaintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, the "gha themselves of appropriate remedies available under law, if *y of the petitioners to avail cause of action survives, arc expressly reserved There shall be no I or'der as to costs. LL Resultantly, this writ petition is dlowed in prrt. Miscellaneous Petitions, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII \ SD/.A. JAYASREE REGISTRAR i # :+ # ( i i f \ ,'f" ,* I f * a I I ! A +., + +,: T + + {f .3- 't* *, + HIGH COURT DATED i2210812025 ORDER WP.No.540T of Z01t U '( * 0 i, rir mr (.,' i ( ii",1i':rli-. *1" * PARTLY ALLOWING THE WITHOUT COSTS PETITION It \1