The legal position governing such matters is well settled. In Satrin Va.s.t v. State of U.p. Others

2-6-ll$ruA, Sri NagarColony, Jangaon, Jangaon District.

8. Gampa Seetha Ramulu, s/o' Veeraiah' aged 63 }'ears' occ' Retired waden' Ri/o. H.ruo.f -g*0, Geetha Nagar, Jangaon, Jangaon Distn?t. 9. Y. Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, aged 55 years' Occ- H.t,lo.+5$gq/A.Bhavani-l$SaiJargeo!,JelgASFQ5;hgt Teacher, Rl/o. Rl/o. 'to.

11. Ramanadham Hospital S/o. Rarn Narsaiah, aged 50 years, Occ' , Ganesh Wada, Jangaon, Jangaon EXstrict Business, Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Jangaon, Jangaon Distrbt.

12. Jilla Narsimha Rao, S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 50 years, Ooc. Business, R/o. Village, Near ZP Sctxiol, Bachannapet, Jangaon 'and Bachannapet Post District.

13.Muggu Koteshwar Rao, S/o. Anjaneyulu, -aged 69 years, Oc. Retired embToyee, R/o. H.No.2€-118/4/A, Sri Nagar Colony, Jangaon District' l4.Thatipamula S!q"_frr, S/o. Narsimha, aged 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Katkm post and Village, Lingalaghanapur, Jangaoh OisiriA.

15. Thallapalli Veeresham, S/o. S.L.N.S. Lorry Transport, Old l6.Tftargallapalj!.Rajabrahma1, 60 years, Occ. Business, Fi/o. Jangaon District Elnppyee, FUo. H:No.1.10-164/S, Weavers eobny, Diskict. _S19. Bhaskar, aged- 44 years, Oec. private Jangaon -Jangbon,

17.K.Uppal Reddy, S/o. Narsi H.No.18-40/313, Srinivas N SftJdipet District. agar, SR 51 years, Occ. Govt Teacher, R/o. School, Prashanth Nagar, Siddipet,

18.V€ngq [aje.llyqr Rao, S/o.. Bhumaiah, aged SO years, Occ. Business. Rt/o. H.No.2{-141lA, Kurumawada, Jangaon, Jingaon bistri&

19.Y. Namdev, S/o. Posl and Village, aged 35 years, Occ. RMP Doctor, R/o. Nellufla

20.p..$u!hakar.Reddy, S/o. $aq Reddy, aged 55 years, Oec. Business, R/o. H.No.2{-1 141 6, Kurmawada, Langaoi,.la-ngion Oislrict. ...RESPONDENTS Petilion 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 Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in harassing and torturing ttre petitioner and his family members without any cause and also the action of the respondents 1 to 6 in not taking action on the complaint dated 06-o6- 2016 and 12-09-2016 given by the petitioner against the respondents z to 20 is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal o Petition under section 1sl 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 not to harass the petitioner and her-family members Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI p PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. I to 6: SRI O. PRADEEP, AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. I to 20 : ---- The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE IIONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'I(ARAil.'I ORDEK -- -Thii WritPeiifioiiis fi[ed ffitli-the-foll-o-'wing-relr?f: '...declaring the action of tl:e respond*F ^F harassing and torturing the petitioner and his farnily mernbers-wittrout any cause and also tl:e action of the respondents I to 6 in not taking action on fte coPplaint aarca OO.OO.ZO16 and L2.O9.2O16 evea by the petitioner against the respondeots 7 to 20 is higltly arUitrary, bad and illegal and pass..." -

2. Heard Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the and Mr.D.PradeeP, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.1 to 6.

3. I-earned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondent-police authorities have been harassing and torturing the petitioner and his family membrs without any justiliable cause, allegedly at the instane of the rrnoilEcial respondents. It is further submitted that, despite the petitioner having submitted

06.06.2016 and L2.O9.2O16, no action was taken ttrereon 2 by the concerned authorities, compelling tJre petitioner to file the present writ petition.

4. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Home submits that a crime was registered against the petitioner vide tt.I.R. No. 467 of 2OlZ, dated OZ.12.2OLZ. After compl:tion of investigation, a charge sheet was fiIed, and the case was taken on file as Calendar Case No. 143 of 2O19 on the file of the learned principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judi,cial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, which is presently pending trial. He further submits tllat the petitioner's presence was secured during the course of investigation, and that the allegations made by the petitiooer are baseless and unfounded. However, he liairly submits that he has no specilic instrrrctions regarding the petitioner's nepresentations dated 06.06.2016 and L2.O9.2OL6, and therefore prays for appropriate orders. 5 I have perused the rnaterial available on record. \ i 3

6. TLre grievance of tJee petitioner is that the respondent- police authorities have been harassing him and his family without any valid reason. However, the orplanation furnished by tJ,e respondents indicates that a crime has been registered against the petitioner, and the same has progressed to trial. Nonetheless, having regard to the constitutional safeguards and {he limits of police authority even during investigation, it is hereby directed tl.at ttre respondent-iolice authorities shall refrain from interfering with the petitioner's personal life and liber$r, as gnaranteed under Article 2l of ttre Constitution of India, except in strict accordance with law and by following due process.

7. Insofar as the petitioner's grievance non- of his reports dated. 06-06-2016 and L2.O9.2OL6 is concerned, it is observed that the petitioner ougtrt to have availed the appropriaG statutory rernedies t973 available under ttre Code of Procedure 4 ("CrPC"f or under the corresponding pnovisions of the Blwratiga Nagaik Suralesla Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS].

8. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. In Satrin Va.s.t v. State of U.p. & Others [(2OOg) AIR SC 9071, the Honble Supreme Court categorically held tJlat when a grievance pertains to the refusal or failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remed.y of invoking ttre writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is mainterinable. The Court emphasized that the Cr.p.C. provides an adequate and ellicacious mechanism to addresrs such grievances.

9. This has been consistently reiterated in subse<1uent decisions. Notably, in M. Sttbramaniam u- S- Jotnki & Others te}2}l AIR SC 3821, a three-Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court reallirmed tl.at an aggrieved party must first exhaust the remedies available under the Cr.P.C., such as approaching the Magrstrate under Sections 156(3) or 2OO Cr.p.C., rather than directly 5 invoking the extraordinar5r writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

10. In view of tlrese setfled legal priirciples, and in the- * "-*-'-'-"-. '' absence of the petitioner having availed tJre statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C., the present writ petition stands not maintainable. However, tJee petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available under [aw, if ttre cause of action still sr:rvives.

11. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. closed pending if any, shall stand ,,TRUE COPY// Til To, 1 . The Sec,retary, l-lcme Departrnent, Secretariat, The State of Telangana,

2. Commissioner of Police, Warangal. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police' Jargaon, Jangaon District 4. Assistant Commissioner of Polioe, Jangaon, Jangaon Distrful' 5. lnspedor of Police, Jangaon Police Station, Jangaon District' 6. Sub lnspector of Police, Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District. 7. One CC to SRI P PRABHAKAR REDOY, Advocate [OPUCI 8. Tvvo CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana' IOUTI 9. Two CD Copies PVL BSR o HIGH COURT DATED:3l llOl2OZs .ntr 5 l-) )( fl 7 H\R /fl75 z * o t'= WP.No.8649 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETIT WTHOUT COSTS :l \\ &t{