The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION O: 10743 OF 2017 Between: Sukavasi Ka.vyg, D{o {mmaiah Chowdary, Age 25 years, Occ ; pvt. Employee, R/o-Venkasai Hostel, Beside Andhra Bank Lane, N6ar Judge House, SR.Na'gar, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONER D

1. The State of.Telangana, Rep.by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 4. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 5. The Station House Officer, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. . 6. Dulam Swamy Naidu. S/o.D. Nageswara Rao, Aqe 32 vears. Occ Facultv R/o.H.No.79, L|GH -2, ApHp.,t-1-277l59/3i, Ndar B.K.Guda park, Balkampet, Hyderabad.

7. D. Anantha Lakshmi, Wo.D, Nageswara Rao, Age 50 years, Occ Housewife, R/o.H.No.79, UGH -2, ApHp..7:1-277159/31, Ne:ar B.(.Guda park, Balkampet, Hyderabad. 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the respondent-police in not registering the petitioners complaint dated 1 5-3-2017 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles of law and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent-police to forthwith register the crime against the respondents No.6 and 7 and take action against them in accordance with Sec.376(2), 420,493, 506 and 509 IPC in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO.13324 OF 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 to direct the respondents-police to register the crime against the respondents No.6 and 7 and take action against them in accordance with Sec.376(2), 420,4g3, 506 and 509 IPC in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI pRUDHVI RAJ MUDUNURT counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : sRl R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : -- The Court made the following ORDER I i f i t t t + *- , * t n t * + * ,t *- t * + f,- , * , * THEHoNoURABLESRIJUSTICEN.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No-10743 OF 2017 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "to issue an appr()priate Writ, Order or direction more particularlv one in tht narure of Writ of Mandamus declaring ihe actio. o[ the resp.ncle.t-p.lice in not registering the petitioners complaint clated 1,5-3-2011 as illegal, arbitary, .oroury to the settled principles o[ law and violative of fundamental rights guararrtccd undcr the constitution of India and consequentlv direct the respondent-police to forthwith register tire ctime against the respondents No'6 and 7 andtake aition against them in accordance with Sec.376(2), 420,4g3,506 and 509 tl'}C in the interest of iustice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the citcumstances o[ the case" ' ""'

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner' J

3. I have heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner's contention is that the crime has 2 not been registered basing on rhe reporr dated 15.03.2017 and as per his instructions, no such report has been received by the respondents. Further, he pleads that even there was in action on the part of the police, the petitioner should have avaL the remedies available under Cr.P.C/BNSS and without exhausting those remedies, seeking a direction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution o[ India, is not permissible as per the settled legal position.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the police authorities have failed to take any action pursuanr to the petitioner's report dated 15.03.2017. It is, however, a well- setded principle of law that a person aggrieved by the inaction of the police in registering a crime is required to avatl the remedies specifically provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1,973 (Cr.P.C.) /Bharartya Nagarik \ \ 3 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 @NSS). Unless such stafutory remedies afe d"ly exhausted, invoking the extraordiflary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, save in exceptional crcumstances.

7. This Court, rn Gouind RE, Sami u. State of Telangana, 201,9 SCC Online TS 3491, while placing reliance on the dicrum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakii Vasu u. State of U.P. dz Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, has categorically held that bypassing the effective alternative remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS and directly seeking fecoufse under Article 226 ts improper. This legal position has further been reaffi.rmed and fortified by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam u. S. Janaki, AIR 2020 sc 387.

8. In view of the setded legal position, the prayer of the petitioner, in the absence of any exceptional or extraordifl ry f ( \ \ t 4 ckcumstances, is held to be not maintainable. Nevertheless, the rights of the petitioner to avarl, the appropriate remedies available in law are preserved. Subject to the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to CoStS. Nliscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// i i

1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State Hyderabad [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI PRUDHVI RAJ MUDUNURI, Advocate I 3. Two CD Copies a SD/-A. JAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR /i OFFICER UC] J To SA BS i Ie-\ \ I * , il- I 't *, * t- f i \ I * , f- i 1, * I t I o- t n ,t +t , *- ., , t i. i i f f i I f HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 ORDER WP.No.10743 o12017 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1fl i .,, &t i,._1 \,,\...' 'ila' . !:-., :1