The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not registering the case against the respondent 5 to 7 on complaint dated 21-12-2016 given by the petitioner for forging and fabricating certificates by the respondents 5 to 7 in respect of petitioners plot and issued by the Sth respondent Sarpanch in the name of the 7th respondent as if he is the owner of the house in respect of the plot of the " i.';: ,iid&Il. l petitioner and basing on the said certificate registered the same in the name of his wife 6th respondent is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and consequently direct the respondents 2lo 4 lo take action against the respondent 5 to 7 pursuant to the complaint dated 21 -1 2-20 16. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 2 and 4 to take action on a complaint dated 21-12-2016 given by the petitioner against the respondents 5 to 7. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.CHENNAIAH, REPRESENTING SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 4: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No 5 To 7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 9377 OF 2018 EDRo R This Writ Petition is filed under Nlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "...lo lssue an order or direction more parlicularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not registering the case against the respondents 5 to 7 on complaint dated 21-12-2016 given by the petitioner for forging and fabicating cerlificates by the respondents 5 to 7 in respect of petitioner's ptot and issued by the Sth respondent Sarpanch in the name of the /h respondent as if he is the owner of the house in respect of the plot of the petitioner and basing on the said ceftificate registered the same in the name of his wife 6th respondent is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and consequently diect the respondents 2 to 4 to take action against the respondents 5 to 7 pursuant to the complaint dated 21-12-201 6 and pass such other order or orders..."

2. I have heard Mr. B.Chennaiah, learned counsel, representing Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 failed to take necessary action by registering a criminal case on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the petitioner against respondent I 2 A"TR,/ LY.P. No. %77 of 201 8 Nos 5 to 7, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions from this Court

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, contends that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case is not maintainable under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have carefully perused the material placed on record

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submitting a written complaint dated 21 .12.2016, the concerned police authorrties failed to register a criminal case. Aggrieved by such alleged inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register an FlR.

7. The issue raised herein is no longer res integra. The Hon,ble Supreme Cou(, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of lJ p & Ofhers, AIR 2009 SC 907, and M Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2O2O SC 3g7, has categorically held that a person aggrieved by the non-registration of an FIR cannot directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under 3 N.r&/ IY.P. Na 9 j77 al201 8 Article 226 of the Constitution without first exhausting the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) 8 ln light of the settled legal position and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought by the petitioner seeking a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case is not maintainable in writ jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate statutory remedies before the competent authority or Court, including by submitting a fresh complaint, if the cause of action continues to subsist. I With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.JAYASREE SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Secretary, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Home Department, Hyderabad.

2. Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad District. 3. lnspector of Police, Mominpet Police Station, Vikarabad District. 4. Sub-lnspector of Police, Mominpet Police Station, Vikarabad District 5. One CC to SRl. P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] w

6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOX/E ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUT]

7. Two CD Copies D/\N PSK Yk ,...!E HIGH COURT DATED:171111202s I I ORDER WP.No.9377 ot 2018 ( oR THE S 14 q () * 1 I IIAR 2i,26 sPATCHt.:O * i::.'i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,e €e \o" W