R. La v. accounts office

Counse! forthe Respondent Nos. 1to5: SRI R. LAXMIKANTT REDDY, AGP FOR HOIII : Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI M. VENKAT RAM RE:l ,DY The Court made the following: ORDER l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.42957 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "-..[o issue a Wit, Order or Direction, more particularly, a Wit in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 4 & 5 in not taking any legal action and not registering the case against the respondent No.6 even though the petitioner has submitted the complaint to the dh respondent on 08.09.2016 as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of /aw and consequently direct the respondents 4 & 5 to take necessary legal action against the respondent No.6 by registeing the case under the provisions of the lndian Penal Code basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 08 09 2016 in the interest of jusflce and pass such other order or orders . . ."

2. I have heard Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents failed to act upon the reporUcomplaint dated 08.09.2016' prayed for necessary directions.

4. Learned AGP would submit that Sth respondent received complaint on 08.09.2016 and on perusal of the averments, the same was closed with an endorsement 'Civil in nature'. However, the learned Assistant \ 2 Government Pleader for Home asserts that the relief sot ght in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the police authc,t ties to register a criminal case-is not maintainable under Article 226 o1 he Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid dc,t rn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

5. I have carefully perused the material placed on re,r ord

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is t tat despite having written complaint dated 08.09.2016, the concerned polic : authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the pe.i ioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of ie Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the pc ice authorities to register a crime

7. Having regard to the submissions and the clost r : of the complaint by the respondents/Police, the contention of the petitirt ter that the Police have not acted upon is unfound. That apart, the lega cosition governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakkl Vasu v. Stale of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertari s to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (F Il), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordirrrily not available The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / ) ("cr.P.c.") provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances

8. This principle has been consistenfly reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon,bte Supreme court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.p.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.p.C rather than direcfly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 9 ln light of these setfled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at riberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with raw, shourd her grievance stifi subsist. l0 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if an y, shall stand closed SD/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,al_-,,' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// \ To, 1 One CC to SRl. S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI i. i;; ccsio-cp FoR HOME ,High Court for the State of relangana at Hwdarahad [Ol lTl i, \

3. One CC to SRl. M. VENKAT RAM REDDY Advocate [O: JCI 4. Two CD Copies BM PVL Sz 'I I -i' (-' C) ) tC i s JAN 2026 a .N - Oco /_<'l i:,,"\l'i-"-l I ( i) HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.42957 of 2016 DISMISSING THE T^/RIT PETITION WITI. OUT COSTS .18- 9 @\6.'t