Mushti Prakash v. The State of Telangana

4. Smt. Ramulamma, w/o Late Ashok Goud, aged major, r/o H.No. 5-38, Kaluvai Post Narwa Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

5. S-Ramakrishna Goud, s/o Ramulu Goud, Aged 43 years, r/o H.No. 5-38, Kaluvai Post Narwa Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oi lhe 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent police in taking action against the 4th respondent pursuant to the complaint dt- 1 3-1 1- 2017, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent police to forthwith act upon the complaint and take action against the 4th respondent in accordance with law pursuant to the complaint dt. 13-'1 1-2017. \ \\ !c'r lA NO: 'l OF 2018 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to direct the respondent Police to register a criminal case agair ;t the 4th respondent pursuant to the complaint dt. 13_11.2017, pending disposa tf the writ petition of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.B.NIVEDITHA, rep., Ms.Y.FT TNA PRABHA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3:SRl D.PRADEEP, AS ST.GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5 : .- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 8066 OF 2O18 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled with the following reliet ".,. to issue al appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declanng the inaction of the respondent police in taking action against the 4,h respondent pursuant to the complaint dt. 13.11.2017 as being illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent police to forthwith act upon the complaint and take action against the 4th respondent in accordernce with law pursuant to the complaint dt 13.11.2O17 and to grant... "

2. Heard Ms.B.Niveditha, learned counsel representing Ms.Y.Ratnaprabha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed challenging the inaction of respondent No.4 in registering the crime upon the representation dated l3.Ll.2Ol7 and seeking appropriate directions lrom this Court 1 \= -

4. Learned Assistant Government pleari:r for Home submits that upon receipt of the petitioners :omplaint, the Police authorities have duly considered t re averments therein and closed the same by advising th : petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the Civil O,> 11 .rO closed the pctition with al endorsement civil in nat rre. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the rc,; rondent-police authorities have not considered the rep esentation is unfounded, arld accordingiy, prayed for clrr missal of the petition.

5. I have perused the materizrls placed on r::ord

6. The petitioner's contention as to non _ .egistration of crime basing on the report has been ex1> ained lty the respondent-police authorities by stating that the sarne was considered and closed as the averments are r ivil in nature. This position is indicating that the rer,; tondent_police authorities have exercised their discretion in -egistering the crime or otherwise. Thus, the content i >n thatr tlte respondent-Police authorities have not c r nsidered the 3 representation is not convincing. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-registration of crime, he should have availed appropriate statutory remedies available under Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C. ) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

7. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu u. Stqte of U.P. & Others (AIR 2OO8 SC 907), the Hon'lcle Supreme Court categorica-lly held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides arl adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grlevances. I

8. This principle has been consistently reafhrmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam u. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified \ that the proper course for an aggrieved party s to avail ttre remedies provided under the Cr.p.C., includirr 1 approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 2O0 lr.p.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of tt e High Court.

9. In light of these settled legal pr inciples, the contention/prayer of the petitioners in tlr : absence of availing the remedy under Code of Civil procr Cure (Cr.p.C.) and exceptiona-l circumstances sta,ds not maintainable. However, reserving the right of the petiti I ters to avail appropriate remedies available under law, if .he cause still surylveS.

10. This petition is dismissed as not main_r jnable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if an1 , shall stand closed. SD'. K.BHAVANI SWAMY dSS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ I \ SECTION OFFICER .l One CC to SRI Y.RATNA PRABHA, Advocate. fOpriC I Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court forthe State c Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies. BSK TKS ? vtL, . To, 1 2 3 I HIGH COURT DATED:31 11012025 ORDER WP.No.8066 of 2018 I Ro( L S 14 \ ( () o i0 ,' i. * l;' \ I , DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o c\ vu\tA"{