Smt E.Eshwari Bhai v. The State of Telangana

'10.Smt. Shenaz Begum, W/o Late Mohd. Yousuf, Aged about 52 Years, Occ Housewife. 1 1.1\4ohd Laeeq S/o Late tt4ohd. Yousuf,, Aged about 35 years, Occ Pvt Service, lr/oulali, Hyderabad. Both are No 44-43711131 , Srinagar colony Moulali, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndrr praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the ligh Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or drrection more particularly rne in the nature of writ of l\,4andamus by declaring lhe inaction of the responderrrl No 2 in considering the complaint / representation of petrtioner dated 25-1O 2('6, about the illegal demolition of the House Premises bearing H.No 12-8-31 1, Allugadda Bavi l\4ettuguda, Secunderabad and damage to the belonging s of the petittoners family, as being illegal, arbitrary, viclative of Articles 14 and t of the Constitution of lndia, besides violative of Principles of Natural Justice an,J consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take action on the complaint / reprr: entation dt- 25-10- 2016 of the petitioner LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO:49459 OF 20'16) Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the crrl rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour rray be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to take action on the complaint / r€ lresentation dt: 25- 10-2016 of the petitioner, pendrng disposal of the Writ Petitio I Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms SRUA, appearing on behalf of SF I PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REtrl Y,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the F-espondents No.4to11: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 40764 0F 2076 ORDER: This Vrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- "...to issue a writ, order or direction, more parlicularly one in the nature of ltrit of Mandamus b.v declaring thc inaction of the respondentNo.2 in considering the complainl/representation of petitioner dated 25.10.2016, about the illegal demolition of the House Premises bearing H.No-12-8-334, Allugadda Bavi, Mettuguda, Secunderabad and damage to tha bclongings of the petitioner's family, as being illegal. arbitrary, t'iolatiyc o.f Articles l4 and 2 ) of the Constitution of India, besides yiolatn'c of Principles of Natural Justice and consequentlv direct lhe 2"d rc-spondent to take action on the complaint/represcntation dt:25.10.2016 of the pelilioner and pass such other order/s as this Court deems ft and proper in the circumstances of the case... "

2. I have heard IvIs.SnjE leamed counsel appearing on behaH of the petitioner as well as Mr.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, Iearned fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondenr Nos.1 to 3. 3 Leamed counsel for the petitioner submim that, owing ro the acts allegedly committed, the petitioner submirted a represenrarion dated 25.t0.2016. As rhe said representarion v/as neirher corsidered ) .r- nor acted upon by the respondents, the petitioner ras approached this Court seeking appropriate directions.

4. In response, the leamed fusistant Govemrr :nt Pleader for Home contends that the substance of the pet tioner's prapr amounts to a request for registration of a criminal c xe pursuant to his representation dated 25.10.2016. It is, howev,: , a well-senled principle of law that a writ petition under AnL, le 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained solely I rr the pulpose of seeking a direction to register a crime, u,ith rut exhausting effective and adequate statutory remedies available ,r rder law.

5. I have pensed the materials on record.

6. The peticioner's grievance is that the c< r cemed police authorities failed to register a case pursuant to her representation dated 25.1,0.2016. The issue raised in the present w' . petition is no longer res integra.In Sakii Vasu u. State 0f U.P. antl (t bers (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme C-ourt categorically t eld that where the poJice fail to register a complaint, the complain;r t has adequate remedies under the Code of Giminal Procedure, 197 ) (G.P-.C). - 3

7. In such situation, the proper course is to first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.p.C, and thereafter, if necessary, to move the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) G.P.C Similar procedural safeguards have now been incoqporated in the Bbaratja I''lagaik Suraksba Sanhitha (for short, "BNSS").

8. This legal position has been consistently reaffirmed. In M. Subramaniam a. S. Janaki (AIR 2020 SC 387), the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed solely for the purpose of seeking registration of an FIR, is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutoly remedies available. Following the same principle, this C-ourt, tn Gouind Rala Sarui u. State of Te/angana (2019 SCC Online TS 3491), held that such writ petitions are nor maintainable without first exhausting the alternative remedies provided under law 9 In light of these senled principles, the present petition is held to be not maintainable. However, libeny is reserved to the TI 4 petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competenr - cou.rt, in accordance with law.

10. \X/ith this obsewation, this petition is dismi; ed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if an) , shall stand closed. To, /iTRUE COPY// SD/. G.JYOTHI ASS STI,I{T REGISTRAR t .-r SECTIO\TOFFICER

1. One CC to SRI PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO, l,r vocate. [OPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR l-iOME, High Court for the State o1 Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies. BSK TKS fra- HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 ( * ,tir E i;o 0 7 ,t 2l]2li :7 Oa.. :: -_. ^e:r-l-l :|r--))' ORDER WP.No.40164 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @t" t+l.o)t'i