The High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. (

8. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Ramagunadam Commissionerate Peddapally Dist. The Station House Office, r GDK 1 Town Police Station Ramagundam Mandal Peddapally Dist.

K. Srinivas Kumar, S/o note known to petitioner Aged. Major, Occ. President of Singarenians Mutually Aided Co-operative House Building Society Presently working as Personal Assistant to Hon'ble MLA Sri NomulaNarasimhaiah, Nagarjunasagar Constituency, Telangana State. The Singarenians Mutually Aided Co-operative House Building Society, Regd No AMC/KNR/DC0|2O05|1O12 Head Office. Godavari khani- 505209 Dist. Peddapalli (erstwhile Karimnagar) Rep. by its Secretary R.V.S.R.K. Prasad, Working as a Finance Manager, Jaipur Power Plant, SCCL Mancherial District, Telangana State The Hyderabad District State, Government andLocal Bodies Class -lV Employees House Building Construction Mutually Aided Co-operative So_c-igty Limited Hyderabad Regd. No AMC/DCOiHYD (U) MACS- 2005/76 Office Shop No 9th , 1st Floor Block A, G.H.M.C. Buddha Bhavan Secunderabad - 500 003. Rep. by its President S.K. Sampath Kumar and office bearers. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, General Manager Personnel, RC, lR and PM, SCCL, Kothagudem, Bhadradri (Khammam )District. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS : - Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia I circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the H g pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly o I Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 rr action against the respondents 4 to 6 who committed fraud t I 1,17,154-50 by collecting the amounts from the members of tf society as illegal, arbitrary, violate of principles of nat consequently direct the respondents 2 86 3 to register respondents 4 to 6 and recover the same and returr Rs.2,11 ,17,154-50 to petitioner 5th respondent society member; aying that in the r Court may be > in the nature of d 3 in not taking a tune of Rs.2,1 : 5th respondent ral justice and :lR against the the amount of lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circurr ;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nri y be pleased to direct the respondents 2 86 3 to register FIR against the resprr rdents 4th to 6th who committed fraud to a tune of Rs.2,1 1,17,154-50 by colle; ing the amounts from the members of the 5th respondent society pursuant to th: complaint of the petitioner dl.20-02-2o19 and file final report within a prescribe I time forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunr the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma direct the respondents 2 & 3 to freeze the operation of account c society vide 52200511'182SBl SCCL Br. Godavarikhani tilt tr investigation, pending disposal of the above writ petition tances stated in 7 be pleased to ' 5th respondent r completion of ) Counsel for the Petitioner : PARTY lN PERSON (NOT PRESEN I Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to 3:SRl D. PRADEEP, AGI FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : SRI KANDULA NAREI; { Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 : SRI P. HARSHA REDrI SCCL r, SC FOR The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9532 OF 2019 DATED : L7.L2.2O25 Between: Gundam Gopi, S/o. Narsaiah. ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 9 others. ::ORDER:: ... Respondents This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not taking action against respondents 4 to 6, who committed fraud to a tune of Rs.2,11,17,154-50 by collecting the amounts from the members ol the Sth respondent society as illegal, arbitrary, violate of principles of natural iustice and consequently direct respondents 2 & 3 to register FIR against respondents 4 to 6 and recover the same and return the amount of Rs.2,1 I,17,154-50 to petitioner, Stl' respondent socie,lz members and pass..." G 2

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistar t (iovernment Pleader for Home, appearing lor respondent I os. I to 3 and Mr. Kandula Naresh, learned counsel rppearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

4. The learned Assistant Government Ple i der lor Home submits that the petitioner had earlier filed L complaint in 2Ol4 containing substantially the sarne avernl :nts. After due enquiry, the said complaint was closed upon ri :rvice of notice to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the :epresentation referred to in the present petition has not ber n acted upon. Hence, the contention that the police arr horities have improperly failed to act upon the petitioner s 'epresentation is untenable. It is further submitted that it' the petitioner remained aggrieved, he ought to have pursue( the statutory remedies available to him under law. He fur,her contends that the relief sought in the present writ petit on, nameiy, a direction to the police authorities to register ;r criminal case is not maintainable under Article 226 of the ( onstitution of 3 India, in view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the materia_l placed on record.

6. The petitioner's grievance, in essence, is that despite submitting a written complaint, the concerned police authorities failed to register a criminal case.

7. The explanation offered by the respondent police authorities indicates that, after exercising their jurisdictional discretion and considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, they decided not to register a crlme Consequently, the allegation that the petitioner's representation was not considered by the respondent police authorities is unfounded. Nonetheless, if the petitioner remains aggrieved, he is at liberty to avail himself of the appropriate legal remedies available under law.

8. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. ln Sakiri Vasu u. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Honble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the failure of the police to reglster a First Information Report (FIR), the appropriate x 4 remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisr iction of the High Court under Article 226. 'I'he Court e: Lphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr P.C.") provides an adequate ald efhcacious statutory mec:lL mism for redressa-l of such grievances.

9. This principle has been consistenti' reaffirmed by ttr.e Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent -r rdgments. Notabl.y, rn M. Subramaniam u. S. Janaki & Other: AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench reiterated that an a1 grieved party must avail the statutory remedies provided rnder the Cr.P.C., inchrding approaching the Magistrate urL,ter Sections 156(3) or 2OO, rather than directly invoking thr: writ jurisdiction of the High Court

10. In view of the settled legal position, rnd in the absence of any exceptional or extraordin:r v circumstances warranting interference by this Court ur der Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief sougi t by the petitione'r cannot be entertained. The statutory lrzr nervork under the Cr.P.C.l Bharatiga Nagaik Suraksha Sant ita, 2023 provides sufficient and efficacious remedies belc re the competent ) Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, if his grievance still survives.

11. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as [o costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stard closed. SO/-A.V.S. P DEPUTY D STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2 J 4 t One CC to SRl. PARTY lN PERSON' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI KANDULA NARESH' Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI P. HARSHA REDDY' SC FOR SCCL' Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana IOUTI Two CD CoPies PVL BS HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 I { ORDER WP.No.9532 ot 2019 ! I.t r. \J 0 l c:: ,,:..\ ij. ,r . . tl i ,,1 ;;f)'/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COS TS I