The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 herein in not taking any action in pursuance to the complaint lodged bythe petitioneron 31'05.2016 & 18.05.2016 respectively against the persons who have played fraud on the family of the petitioner for their illegal enrichment and not even registering an FIR or causing any enquiries in terms of the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P, as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take action. on the complaints lodged by the petitioner on 31.05.2016 & 18.05.2016 respectively with them and to register and FlR. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to direct the respondents 2 & 3 to take action on the representations/complaints submitted by tre petitioner on 31.05.2016 & 18.05.2016 forthwith, pending disposal of the :lbove writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. PRADEEP, ASST. Gp FOR HOME The Court mads the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI UrRIT PETITION No.7O94 OF 2()ta ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: '...to issue Eu1 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Manddmus declaring the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in taking any action in pursuance to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 31.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 respectively against the persons who have played fraud on the family of the petitioner for their illegal enrichment and not even registering an FIR or causing any enquiries in terms of ttre Judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take action on the complaints lodged by the petitioner on 31.05.2O16 and 18.05.2OL6 respectively with them and to register an FIR anfl to pass..."

2. Heard Mr.M.Chalapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the petitioner's representations dated 31.05.2016 and

18.05.2016, the respondent police authorities failed to register a crime/FlR. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for issuance of €rn appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner's representations dated 31.05.2016 an&

18.05.2016 were considered and as the averments are of civil in ! i:l ! i i ! I E I , I 2 nature, the same were closed by insisting the petitioner to avail appropriate, civil remedies. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, should have availed statutory remedies. It is further submitted that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a ,lirection to the police authorities to register a criminal case, is not maintainable under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Honble Su.preme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submittintl a written complaint dated 31.o5.2o16 and 18.05.2016 the concet'ned police authorities failed to register a case. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. In Sakin vasu u. state of Lr.P. & others (AIR 2008 sc goz), the Hon'ble Supreme court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the proper remedy does not lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226. The court emphasized that the code of criminal Procedure, 1973 ("cr.p.c.") provides a.n adequate and efficacious statutory mechanism to red.ress such grievances. ,1 ! i I i : : i i i ; I t I ! t t a I It r t I I I I I .i-:ffi tr/ , t'u'' 7 ' This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the Honble supreme court in subsequent judgments. Notably, in M. Subramaniam us. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 3BZ), a three-Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the remedies provided under the cr.P.c., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 2oo,"rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. In light of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumsta.nces warranting intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the cr.P.c./BNSS provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, if their grievance still surylves.

9. Accordingly, with the above noted liberty, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneou.s Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. \ 1 To, //TRUE COPY/ S-D/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTTON OFFICER

1. 9n" QQ to SRt M. CHALAPATH|, Advocate ?. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME,'iiign Court tor 3. Two CD Copies BN IoPUCI , tne State of Tetangana. [OUT] I rr'41 ,tt HIGH COTIRT DATED:06/1 112025 ORDER WP.No.7094 of 2018 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS cs9 I i a I 1 i I , I I i J l, I ! I E