1. Md. Khaleel 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 writ more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction to declare the action of the respondent No. 1 to 4 for not considering the representatiorr cf the petitioners dt. 2O-O2-2O18, before the Respondent No. 3 & 4, for not to co sider any compliant and application fited by the Respondent No.5 to 7 wittr respect of property bearing No. Plot No. 25 in Sy.No. 20,21,22,33/P admea:t ring 305 Sq. Yards situated at Mehdi Colony, Shamshabad, R.R.District. lA NOr 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci1 umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou'1 may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to 4 to dispose of the represerr ation dt. 20-02-2018 before for Respondent No. 4 for not to consider and registe r any FIR against the Petitioner's as the matter is pending in O.S. No. 157 of , ( 18 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, T.S. till the disposal of the tA rit Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI BASKULA ATHIK (Not Pre'r ent) Counsel for the Respo,ndents No.1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No. 5 to 7: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER () THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.6948 OF 2018 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "fo l-ssue a Writ or order or direction more padiculafly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing the action of respondents 1 to 4 for not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.02.2018, before the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for not to consider any complaint and application filed by lhe respondent No.s to 7 with respect of propefty beaing Plot No.25 in Sy. Nos.20, 21, 22, 33/P admeasuing 3OS square yards situated at Mehdi colony, Shamshabad. R. R. District

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the wriften representation submitted by the petitioner on

20.02.2019 was duly considered by the concerned police authorities and, upon thorough examination, was rejected on the ground that it lacked merit. Accordingly, the contention that the said representation was not considered by the police is untenable. Hence, he prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 2

4. I have perused the material available oh r€cc,l J

5. The explanation offered by the respondenl ndicates that the petitioner's representation was duly considere < , and that, in the exercise of their discretion, the authorities ,l rcided not to register a crime. However, if the petitioner is agg'l :ved by such inaction, the proper course would be to avail the statutory remedies available under law.

6. The legal position governing matlers of this rature is well settled. ln Sakln Vasu v. Sfafe of U-P. & Others I \tR 2008 sc 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically hel, I that when a grievance relates to the alleged refusal of the poli,; ) to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), recourse to the wrrt jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constituti rn of lndia is ordinarily not maintainable. The Court emphasizec hat the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), now re I laced by the Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provide: an adequate and efficacious statutory mechanism for redre ,sal of such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently subsequent judicial pronouncements. Note t eaffirmed in ly, in M. 3 Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Ofhers (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( reiterated that an aggrieved party, in cases of alleged inaction by the police, must avail the remedies prescribed under the Cr.P.C-, such as approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C., rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. ln light of the settled legal principles, and in the absence of

8. any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies available under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C./BNSS, if the cause of action continues to subsist. L Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// KHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR D/- B. 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI BASKULA ATHIK, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVIE (TG). High Court forthe State of Telangana at' Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies PMK /ul- B,* HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 ORDER WP.No.6948 ot 2018 --- : ::_:- :ilr.ii i: : ... o() 2',1 '/.[28 B fi\ t Dpr' n * DISM]SSING THE WRIT PETITION AS IIOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS rt{ ,z\'\'r