Abdul Azeem v. 1. The State of Telangana

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, Orders or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents police in not taking action against the 4th respondent in doing dharna by erecting a tent in front of the petitioners house, without taking any permission from the police doing nuisance and causing inconvenience to the petitioner family members to in and out from the house for the past 60 days and the petitioners family members unable to enter into the house is illegal and void and opposed to Article 14, 19' 21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents police to remove the dharna tent of the house 4th respondent in front of the petitioner house and also take necessary action against the 4th respondent under Section 133 of Cr.P.C by making complaint to the Sth respondent IA NO 1 0F 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ()i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the respondents police to file complaint before the 5t respondent under Sec 133 of Cr.P.C for removing of the public nuisancr done by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MUMMANENI SRINIVASA ]t \O Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI D. PRADEEP , I GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5:- The Court made the following: ORDER / I l THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 6273 OF201E ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "-..Io issue a Wit, Order, Orders or Directions more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, dectaring the action of the respondents potice in not taking action against the 4th respondent in doing dharna by erecting a tent in front of the petitioner's house without taking any permission from the police doing nuisance and causing inconvenience to the petitioner family members to in and oul from the house for the past 60 days and the petitioner's family members unable to enler into the house is illegal and void and opposed to Ariicles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents police to remove the dharna tent of the house 4th respondent in front of the petitioner house and also take necessary action against the 4Ih respondent under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., by making comptaint to the dh respondent and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of iustice and fo pass such other order or orders. . ."

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

3. Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the representation of the petitioner was pertaining to Dharna by respondent No. 4 in front of his house and as the competent authority to initiate such action being respondent No. Sffahsildar, no crime has been registered nor any action 2 Ar/]t,Jr lV'.P. No. 627i of 201 8 has been taken. As such, the contention rt sed against the respondents/Police is unfounded. lt is further sutrt ritted that, if the petitioner was aggrieved by such action, he ought l( have availed the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedur:, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). Without exhausting such statutory remedies, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Const t rtion of lndia is not maintainable, as per the settled legal principles. Hence. he learned Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition

4. I have perused the material placed on record.

5. The sum and substance of the petitioner's cont: ltion is that basing on the report of the petitioner, no action has been taker by the Police. The explanation offered by the respondents/Police is clear that the crime has not been registered on the ground that respondent Nr . S/Tahsildar is the appropriate authority to take action. Howsoever, f the petitioner is aggrieved by non-registration of crime, he had : ficacious statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C. (now Bharatiye Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Without availing such remedies, apr: oaching this Court directly for a direction to register a crime is impermissib e, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu y. Sfafe of lJtt;' Pradesh & Ofhers (AlR 2008 SC 907) and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janak & Ofhers (AlR 2020 --sc 387) t' 3 ^1&/ IV.P. No. 6271 oJ 2018 6 ln light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the setfled regar position, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this court under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. (or the corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), if lhe cause of action still survives.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- T. SR]NIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 One CC to SRt. MUMMA Two CCs to cp FOR HOilElfrTti'ffi|,H"sAi"'B?t'S,l?;*:r", Hyderabad [OUfl Two CD Copies - BM 'rk* , I HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 ORDER WP.No.6273 of 2018 :=- S/; ( Ro (J i.i cD ? t 12 r/0 ';fl)F C) {.* ly Hf.c DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WIT IIOUT COSTS I L,'o CJ I \-) zzlzlzc