The legral position on this issue is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe of lJttar Pradesh Ofhers

petitiorr under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancerr stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to iss;ue writ, order or direction more particularly one in. the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not issuing the FIR an6 registering th.e crime of the cognizable offences against; the respondent Jrlo.4,to 16 on the complaint dated 1- 11'2016 lodged by the writ' petitioner with the respondent No.3 is highly illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional' under law. Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit ftled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to issue FIR against the respondent No.4 to 16 by registering the complaint of cognizable offences dated 1-11-2016 lodged by the writ petitioner with the resprrndent No.3 on 1-1 1-2016 and to investigate the same under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and to submit the final report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. thereon expeditiously pending disposal-of the above writ petition- Counset for the Petitioner: SRI MANIK LAL YADAV (NOT PRESEil-T) - --..,,.: Counsel for rthe Respondent Nos.l TO 3: SRI M.SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOf'rIE Counsel forthe Respondent No.8: SRI MOHD. ASIFUDDIN FOR SRI K.GOVIND eounsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 7 & 9 TO 16: -- The Court made the foltowing: ORDER n ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAIIIJI WRIT PETITION No.13555 of 2017' This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...fo lbsue writ, order or direction more partianlarly ottr- in the.nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inactiin of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not issuring the FIR aN registering the crime of the cognizable ofunces againd the respondent trlos.4 to 16 on the amplaint dated 01.11.2016 lodged by the writ petitioner with the respondenf No.3 ls highly illegal, untawfut and unconstitutional under law and pass srrch other or&r or None appears on behalf of the petitioner. , Heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Crovemment Pleader for.

3. Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.MoM. Asifuddin, representing learned counsel Mr.K.Govind, leamed counsel for. the respondent No.B.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home sr,rbmits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direotion to the police authorities to register a criminal case, is not mairfrainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled tegal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have carefully pe,rused the material placed on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner's grievance is that, despite having submitted a written complaint dated 01.11 .2016, the ooncemed police ! j I I 2 authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Cotrrt tlnder Article 22$ ot.the Gonstitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime based on his cornplaint

7. The legral position on this issue is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe of lJttar Pradesh & Ofhers (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that where a grievance pertains to the refusat or failure of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), lhe proper and efficacious remedy lies not in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but in pursuing the statutory mechanisms provided tmder the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). The Court emphasized that the Cr.P.C. constitutes a complete code providing adequatE remedies to an aggrieved person, including recourse to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

8. This; principle has been consistently reaf'firmed in subsequent judgments;. Most notably, tn M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that when an aggrieved person's grievance arises from police inaction in registering a case, the appropriate course is to avail renredies provided under the Cr.P.C., including fil{ng an aoplisa.tion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the competent i : L t I I t I ,,-,,,_:-:-::.:::H r .'" 1., " :;,.. ..,, ./ a l 3 Magistrate for a direction to register an FtR, or instituting a pri'vate complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Court further clarified that directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, without exhausting such statutory remedies, is impermissible except in rare or exceptional circumstanc€s wananting hnmediate / ,/ intervention.

9. !n view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme'Court and'in the absence of any exceptionat circumstian@s .'in the present case that"would justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction, ,, this Court holds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 annot be entertaiiied. The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C. provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should his grievance still persist.

10. With this direction, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintrainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. *sD/-c. ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI MANIK LAL YADAV, Advocate 2. One CC to SRI K.GOVI 3. Two CCs to GP FOR H Hyderabad. IOUTI

4. Two CD Copies State of Telangana, at / To PSK. BS SF I I I I t , i HIGH COURT DATED:08/10/2025 ORDER WP.No.13555 of 2017 HES c() 2I Ju{ 2026 * i * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUIT GOSTS * 6\ b/