Athaveli Venkatesh S/o Late Ramalingam, Aged v. Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad

Petition urrder Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia p.raying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not registering the r:rime on my complaint dated 02.08.2016 as illegal, irregular, irrational, amourrts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on them under the provisions ol Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and offends Articles 14 and 2'l of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 4th respondent to register a crime and prcrsecute the respondents 5 to 17 for appropriate offences and penal provisions of law I.A. NO: I OF 20I6(WP MP. NO: 37387 OF 2016) Petition urrder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi ed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th re:;pondent to register a crime on my complaint dated 02.08.2016 and prosecute l:he respondents 5 to 17 for appropriate offences and penal provisions of law, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to17: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THEHONoURABLESRIJUSTICEN.TUKARAMJI ORDER: This writ Petition is filed with the following relief: .....to issue a writ, order or d.irection mote particulatly one in the nature o[ \x RIT OF NIANDAMIJS declaring the action of tespondents 2 to 4 in not registering thc crime on my .o-plri.tt **d 02.a8.2016 as illegal, irregular, irrational, amounrs to non discharge of legal obligation con_ferred on them under thc provisions of Code oiCdminal Ptocedure, 1973 znd offends Articles 14 and 21 of constitution of India and consequendy dfuect the 4th resp<rnclenr to register a crime and prosecute the respondents 5 rc 17 For offenies and penal provisions of laur""" "" ^pi.opri"t.,

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner'

3. Hearcl Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home apPearing for respondent Nos' ito4. 4 f'he learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has submitted that the relief sought in the Pfesent wfit petition, nameh'' a <lir:ection to the police authorities to register a criminal case is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in vierv of rhe weil-settled legat position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme (.clurt. -) I havc perused the material placed on record' :!

6. The gr:ievance of the pei-irion<.:r, in essence, is that despite having lodged a written complaint rJated 02.08.2016, the concerned ' police authorities failed to registtrr a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the: petitioner has invokeo the writ iurisdiction of this Court under: Article 226 of the Constirudon of India, seeking issuance of il writ of mandamrls <iit'cr:r-i;rg the police authorities to fegGtef a crllne. 7 The le1;al position governing such matters is now well settled. In Sakiri Vnsu a. State 0f L;.!>. :t:, L)llters (r\IR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Courr ci''ir:g')i:ic:Liir: il6id that r'vhere the grievance pertains to the refusal of ;hc poiic.: ro register a First Information Report €IR), recourse [o t1:., tli;1ir (.ourt under Article 226 is ordinarily not per:rnissibic. 'l'ire Couri i:mphasized that the Code of Criminal Pr,:cedure, 1(.)73 i"L,r.ir.(..-") provides an adequate and efficacious s:aiutorv tlanre tvr>rk ior r:cciressai of such grievances.

8. This principle has bcen c..rnsi".rcrrtiv reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronourlcemenis. Nlost irt;tal-rlr'. in M. Subramartiam a. -f. lanaki dy Orherc (.\Iti .lt)20 S(. 3li7\, ii. three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Su1>rctne (-orrrt r:iar:ific,i tlrr.r. rhe proper coufse for' an I) aggrieved parry is to aval, the remedies under the cr.P.C' including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 20a cr'P'c', , rather than directly invoking the writ iurisdiction of the High Court. g. In view of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would fustifi' exercise of f urisdiction under Article 226, this Court is not inclined to entertain the reliefl,sought in the writ petition' The statutory scheme under the Cr.P.C. provides sufficient and efficacious remedies betore the compeie"nt i\{agistrate, and the petitioflef is at liberry to avail such rcrnedies in accordance with Iaw, should his gflevan ce continue to subsist.

10. Accorclinglv, the u'rit petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 'I'here shail be rro order as to costs. N{iscellanerrus Petitions, pending tf any,shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY/' To, 1 2 3 ONE CC tO SRI. M. SOLOTVION RAJU, Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the Two CD Copies BM BSR SD/. B.RE ANT STRAR N OFFICER Telangana. [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED: 1 9 ,t0912025 ORDER WP.No.302t23 of 2016 tl HE SiA o() 2 2 JAN 2r2[ 7. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^P ,D