Yatham Varalaxmi v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not registering FIR against the respondents 5 to 1 1 inspite of the petitioner complaint dated 10-5- 2016 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequential directions to the respondents 1 to 4 to register FIR against the respondents 5 to 1'1 as per the petitioner complaint dated 10-5-20'16 and protect the petitiorrer prcperty i.e., Iand admeasuring Ac.4.00 in survey No.16/3 situated at Nlattampalli village, Raghunathapalem mandal, Nalgonda District immediately I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 34921 OF 2016) Petition under Sectton 151 CPC praying that in the cir;Umst.inces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coui nay be pleased to direct the respondents to the respondents 1to 4 to registr:r FIR against the respondents 5 to 'l 1 as per the petitioner complaint dated 1r)-5-2016 and protect the petitioner property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.4.00 in survey No.16/3 situated at Mattampalli village, Raghunathapalem mandal, Nalgonda t)istri:t immediately pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KARUNAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI R. LAXMIKANTII REDDy, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5&6: SRt S. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8to11: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7:-- The Court made the following: ORDER "t"l TIIE HONOUITABLE SRI JUSTICE N.'tUKAITANI.II WRI'I'PETI'I'ION No.28184 OF 201 6 OIIDER: This Writ Petition is flled under Article 226 of Cdnsritution ot' India seeking the lollowing reliefl/s:- "...Io i.rsrr., u vnt ()r orler nl)t-c pdtiicul(t y one in thc rurturc of vrtt o/ nttttlanru.,, Lleclanng the dctioh o/ thc rcspondent Nos.2 b 4 in not registet in! l. lR dlutt\t lhr responLlcnt Nos.5 b ll inspite dthe petitioner comploint tlutctl tO05 )()16 i: iltttd. trrbitrurr ond tnJust ttnd crtnsulucntiol tlirections to the respttntlt'ttt Nos I to I to rL'gtstcr FIR ogiiltst th( respondent Nos.5 t.) ll as per the petitiutcr totupluittr Llutttl l0 0 i 2016 tnd pntkct the pclilioner property i.e-, lontl utlntcasn ing .lt l 00 in snt t \k) 16 1,.\iunted ot Mtrtonpalli vllagc, Rttghunatfurptlcn ,llttndul, ,*uulg,tntfu l)utiLt trttnttditrtclt ond kt lttrs; such other oxler or onlers us this Iktnllc (.ourt ntt ltLtns lit jLt\t tnl l oF(r in lh? ('it'( uDtstan( t:s of the case . . ."

2. I havc heard Mr. Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioncr antl Mr. R. Laxrnikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Covernrneut Plcader lbr Horne appearing lor respondent Nos. I to 4 i. l-earned counscl lot the petitionels would submit that respon(lcnt Nos.2 to;l tailed to register the crirne basing on the complaint tlated l().05.2016 Cortsccluently, learned counsel prays for issuance ot an appropr.iilte dircction to the responclent Nos.2 to 4 to ensure registration of the case

4. Learnecl Assistant Goventrnent Pleader fbr Horue sr-rbnrits that it is not settled that the petitioner cannot irvoke Section 226 ol Constitution ol [rrdia fbr tlirection lor registlation of crirne except availing the alternative rentcdies available under law. -5. I hai,e peruscd the n)aterials on rccorcl \I - -l

6. l'he esscncc o[ tlre petitioncrs, grievanco is that rcsltonclent Nos.2 to 4 failed to registcr- a casc basecl on thc police r.epor datcrl 10.05.2016. conseclue,tly, thc petitioner seeks a direction lrorn this court uncler Afticle 226 of the Constitution of [nclia to conrpel the policc to register I :r-irnc. 7 [n this regarci. thc lro,'ble Suprer,c courl i, sakiri IlLsu , srate of u.p. & Oth<,rs, AIR 2008 SC 907, has laid tlown that a rvrit P:tition under. Afticle 226 is ordinarilv not rnaintainahre wrren the grievance pedains to the ,on- registration ol an t-rR, inasr,ucrr as the cotre of criminar proceclure (cr.p.C.) pro'irlcs a, aclecluatc arur cflicacious remcrry, Forlowing t.his principre. this court, in Govinrr Raitr .\otri | . st(ttc .f re rrtngana,20 r9 s(rc onrine TS 349 I. reiteratod that a petitiouc[ nlt-lst exllaust the stalutory reulc(lir]s available uncler t,e cr'P-c (.on' re,raccd bv the Brrar-atiya Nagarik Surar:sha Sa,hita,202i, rvherevcr applicable) berorc i.voking the writ.iurisd iction of the High courr. 8 'fhis legal position has bceu further reintbrced by a throe-jurrge Bench or thc []on'ble Supretlc Court rn ll,[. SubrornanitLrr r,. S JatttAi & Others, AIR 2020 sc 387. whcrein it was clarifiecr that the appropriate r.c nedy in such cases is to approach the N4agist.atc uncrcr trre proccdurc co,te.rpra1ecl in law. ratrrer- than directly invoking the rvr-it juriscliction. 9 Lr vierv of rhe sclrrcrl le-uar ,.sition, trre rerief sought hy thc petitioners under Arliclc 22(t <tf rrte c.ustitution o['Inclia can,ot be e,tc.ai,ed, parlicurarry iu the absence of any cxccptionaI or extraorrlinary circLrmsta tc:es dornonstratecl . .,) in the rv.it pctition. Tlie sche.rc ol law provides adequate ancl efiicacious rernedics before the colnpetent Magistrate, rvhich the petitioner is at Iiberly to pursue i. accordance with [arv, shoulcl the cause of action stilI subsist.

10. Accorclingly, the writ pctition is disr,issecr as not maintairabrc- Therc sliall be no oruler as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closecl \ To, SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER i/TRUE COPY//

1. One CC to SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY'1\dfgg9tg TOPUCI i 5ll" 66 i" sni. s. cHANIDRA I\IbHAru'nEoov' flvoca-tq IoPUC] 5 i;; d6tj" cploh no-rvir ,n'gh court for the state of relansana at a t,iri"cttil'cF Fon REVENUE High court for the state of relangana' at 5. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] Hyderabad [OUT] BM TKS Y\- HIGH COURT DATED:1410812025 ORDER WP.No.28184 of 2016 'i l trf Sf4 p G ,t( t I tr0[ lu +FTE DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q,co{uu W-*' ,(,l\d2\"