P. Sujatha v. 1. 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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in not registering any FIR against the Respondent No. 4 against her complaint, dated- 04.04.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Apex Court directions, Nirbhaya Act, 2013, article 14, article 21 of Constitution of lndia. l.A. NO: I 20{7(WPMP. NO: I 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 ,/ t I l, i I I, i , I I ; : ir. t: t:: I I i I I Lr direct the Respondent No. 2 to seize the passport of the Respondent No. 4 bearing No. F8020705 in the interest of iustice Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.lto3 : SRt R.LAXMTKANTH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME Counset for the Respondents No.4 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER I f # + + i. ,* $ + { ,r I I I t Ir" -'\ i ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.12922 OF 2017 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...fo issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direclion, more pafticularly one in the nature of Wrtt of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondenf No.3 in not registertng any FIR against the Respondent No 4 against her oomplaint dated 04.04.2017 as illegal arbitrary and violation of the Apex Court direc:tions Nirbhaya Act 2013 afticle 14, afticle 21 of Constitution of lndia and pass such other order or orders....u -

2. Heard Mr.D.V.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the representation dated 04.04.2017 the police failed to register a Crime/FlR due to the undue influence exerted by the then Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). Consequently, counsel prays for the issuance of an appropriate direction to the Superintendent of Police or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

4. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home submits that filing of writ petition seeking a direction to register a case, is not maintainable as per the seftled legal position i i i: ')

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner's grievance is that the concemed police authorities failed to register a case based on the representation daled 04.04.2017. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia to compel the police to register a crime.

7. ln this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U;P. & Others, reported in AIR 2OO8 SC 907, has laid down that a writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable when the grievance pertains to the non-registration of an FlR, inasmuch as the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) provides an adequate and efficacious remedy. Following this principle, this Court, in Govind Raju Sami v. Sfafe of Telangana, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine TS Ug1, reiterated that a petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. This legal position has been further reinforced by a three.judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subnmaniam y. S. Janaki & Others, reported in AIR 2020 SC 387, wherein it was clarified that the appropriate remedy in such cases is to approach the Magistrate under I ! l ('\ 3 the procedure contemplated in law, rather than directty invoking the writ jurisdiction. 9- ln view of the setfled regar position, the retief sought by the petitioner under Arricre 226 of the constitution of tndia cannot be entertained, particularly in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances demonstrated in the writ petition. The scheme of raw provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should the cause of action still subsist.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainabre reserving the right of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the concerned authority in accordance with law, if any cause still survives. There shalt be no order as to costs. Miscefianeous petitions, pending if any, shail stand crosed. . SD/.M. OSMAN ,/TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CC to SRt D.V.RAO, Advocate. tOpUCI 2. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the State 3. Two CD Copies. BSK BS 5- #. k i. ISTRAR OFFICER na. [OUT] \ I HIGH COURT DATED i28l0gl2025 '* ,ir rF r *, :' ;16 t + D li D f= Li WP.No.12922 of 2017 ) S iA 1t JAN 2[26 :, /-.- I o (. * D]SMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { # i ;t/ +