Gurajala Venkateswara Rao v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 o'f 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 3rd respondent in failing to register the crime against the respondent No. 4 on the complaint of the petitioner dt-10-06- 2017 uls 436 (1 ) (d) r/w section 129 of lndian Companies Act 20'1 3 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to take cognizance of the petitioners complaint Dt-10-06-201 7 u/s 436 (1 ) (d) r/w section '1 29 of lndian Companies Act 2013 by taking up appropriate investigation to submit the report before the special court constituted under the lndian Companies Act- l.A. NO:l OE2017(WPUP. No: 24031 oF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r iumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mrr be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to take cognizance of the petitioner's co r rlaint dt. 10-06-2017 u/s. 436 (1) (d) riw section 129 of lndian Companies A: 2O13 by taking up appropriate investigation to submit the report before the spe ; al court constituted under the lndian Companies Act, pending disposal of the abo er writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.JANARDHAN RAO (NOT I RESENT) Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 6: SRI P.VISHNUVAf DHANA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER N.tEWWl/ ..* /, --,-,/ / /t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.19684 OF zOLz ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled with the following relief: "...to issue a writ, order or d.irection more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandarnus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in failing to register the crime against the respondent No.4 on the complaint of the petitioner dt. 10.06.2017 u/s 436 (1) (d) r/w Section 129 of Indian Companies Act 2O 13 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3.d respondent to take cognizance of the petitioners complaint Dt-lO.06.2017 u/s 436 (1) (d) r/w section 129 of Indian Companies Act 20 13 by taking up appropriate investigation to submit the report before the special court constituted under tJ e Indian Companies Act..."

2. None appears on beha-lf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the 3'd respondent to take cognizance of the petitioner's complaint dated

10.06.2017 u/s.436(1) (d) r/w Section 129 of Indian Companies Act, 2Ol3 by taking up appropriate 1 2 investigation to submit the report before Jre Special Court constituted under the Indian Compar i:s Act,-is not maintarinable under Article 226 of the Cr,: .stitution of India, in vierv of the well-settled legal positirt r laid down by the Honble Supreme Court.

5. I have carefully perused the materia r placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in sr bstance, is that despite having written complaint dated lC.O6.2Ol7, the concerned police authorities failed to re11 ster a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner Las invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Ar,;cle 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ o[ rnandamus directing the police authorities to register a < r irne.

7. The legal position governing matters cf t.his nat.ure is well settled and no longer res integra. In li riiln Vasu u. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2OO8 SC 907) the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the polict: l,t registeFa* 3 First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr'P'C'") provides art adequate and efhcacious statutory framework to address such grievances. B. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements' Most notably, in M. Subramaniam u. S.Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), athree-Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is 'to avaii the remedies provided under the Cr'P'C'' including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 2OO Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In light of these settled 1egal principles, and in the g. absence of arry exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Cotrrt under Article 226, the relief sought by the I t I ! 4 \ petitioner cannot be entertained. The statut )ry scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedie ; before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is r liber[. to pursue such remedies in accordance with aw, should his grievance srill subsisr. iO. Accordingly, the wr-it petition is disnr r s,ed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to c: its. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, s,hall stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY// SD/.B.REKHA RANL S ISTANT REG| THTR t.--"-- ,sEcTroN oFFrcER One CC to SRI M.JANARDHAN RAO, Advocate One CC to SRI P.VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY, Ad Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the Stat Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies U:I <;; t: [OPUC] ,) -[elangana, To 1 2 a 4 PSK. D{ HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 \ ORDER WP.No.19684 ot 2017 - --; :'all--5 Uir t r'.- s !.AJt: '. 2 ) ILB 2026 z * o,i; PATC * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS