R. Krishna Rao S/o R. Mukunda Rao v. The State of Telangana

4. The Commissioner GHMC, Tankbund, Hyderabad 5. The Dy. Commissioner GHMC, Secunderabad 9. Smt. Latha, Wo T. Balaji Aged about 45; Occ: House Wife R/o H.No. 12-10- 22913, Neat Railway Station Seethaphal Mandi Secunderabad.

7. P. Kalyan Prasad, S/o P. Maheswar, Aged about 42 yearc, Occ: Private service Rl/o H.No. 12-10-229/3, Near Railway Station Seethaphal Mandi Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent 3 to register complaint against the 6th respondent, as she is threatening the petitioner with dire consequences by instigating her dogs on the petitioner, consequently direct the Sth respondent to take necessary action as per Hyderabad Municipal Act 1955. -.- ry -.-u ',' / l.A. NO; 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO :'14799 OF 20171 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 3 to register petitioner complaint 19.02.2016 against the 6th respondent issue FIR copy by taking appropriate legal action pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A. NO:2OF 2017(WP MP. NO: 20104OF 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 expedite the hearing in the Writ Petition No.1189212017 in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. KRISHNA RAO, PARTY-IN-PERSON (NOr PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.4 & 5: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 11892 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Afiicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...to issue any appropriate Wn| Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent 3 to register complaint against the 6th respondent, as she is threatening the petitioner with dire consequences by instigating her dogs on the petitioner, consequentty direct the 5th respondent to take necessary action as per Hyderabad Municipal Act, 1955 and pass such other order or orders.. ."

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Heard Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Asslstant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 'l to 3 and lVr. G llladhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHtUC), appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case-is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have carefully perused the material placed on record 2 N7R,/ lY.l'. No. 1 1892 of 2017

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 19.02.2016, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a cnme

7. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakiri Vasu v. Slate of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Courl emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr,P.C.'') (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances B. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. lVlost notably, in l/1. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Olhers (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble 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 _t ATR,/ IY.P. Na I I 892 of 201 7 under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

9. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226,lhe 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 liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist. '10. 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 SDI K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC SRI R. KRISHNA RAO, S/o: R. Mukunda Rao, R:/o Flat No.B 604, Niharika Signature, Gachibowli, R.R. District[OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU!

3. One CC to SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S.C. for GHtvlC [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies MP -' I I l I HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 I IASHE1 \ \)3 ?BJArr2o26 * a t:,. ORDER WP.No.11892 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS *.'z ,tv*.' At*