The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakii Vasu v. jtate of tJ.p. Ofhers

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 inaction of the 2nd, 3rd respondents in investigating into the offences committed by the respondents No.4 and 5, as illegal, contrary to law, bias and opposed to Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia consequently direct the 2nd, 3rd respondents to provide security. t.A. NO: 1 0F 2017 WPMP. NO :4209 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cotr may be pleased to direct the 2nd. 3rd respondent to consider and act upon the epresentation dated 31 .10.2016 pendinq disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. KARUNA GUTHA (Nor PREST I r) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI M.SRINIVAS, Ai P FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I I I l I I I I I i I j l l : I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3532 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "...to issue a wit. order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wit of mandamus dectaring the inaction of the 2nd, 3rd respondents in investigating into the offences commifted by the respondents No. 4 and 5, as itlegal, contrary to law, bias and opposed to Articte 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia consequently diect the 2nd, 3rd respondents to provide secuity and to pass, .. ."

2. None appears for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 3

4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, submits that upon receipt of the petitioner's representation dated 31 .10.2016, the police authorities duly considered the matter and, upon examination, found that the issues raised theretn were civil in nature. Consequently, the representation was closed, with an advice to the petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies'

4.2. He further contends that if the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the non-registration of a crime, the proper c,ourse would have been to invoke the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal 2 '. Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and without exhausting su ;h remedies, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly. re prays that the petition be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material placed on record ar j considered the submissions on behalf of both parties.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the r spondents/police authorities failed to register a crime on the basis of t s representation dated 31.10.2016. However, the learned Assistant Gcr -.rnment pleader for Home has placed on record that the police, up: r examining the petitioner's representation, exercised their discretion ar I concluded that the dispute was civil in nature, advising the petitic r er to seek civil remedies. This clearly indicates that the representatior vas not ignored, but duly considered and acted upon by the authorities.

7. lf the petitioner remained dissatisfied with such i conclusion, the law provides an efficacious alternative remedy under thr: lr.p_C., namely, by approaching the Superintendent of police under Se<i :n 154(3), or by seeking appropriate directions from the Magistrate unde . Section .156(3) Cr.P.C. to ensure registration and investigation of a cogrr rable offence.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakii Vasu v. jtate of tJ.p. & Ofhers, (2008) 2 SCC 409, and in M. Subramanianr v. S. Janals't Others. (2020) 16 SCC 728, has categorically held that a petition under r::+gfetEstiJ r:.t-YF{. ..'r.,' , /' 3 Article 226 of the constitution of lndia, seeking a direction to register a case is not maintainable when effective statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. are available and have not been exhausted. The Supreme Court I I has emphasized that the High Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining such writ petitions, except in cases involving exceptional circumstances, such as manifest injustice or abuse of power' L ln light of the settled legal position, and as the petitioner has approached th-is Court without availing the statutory remedies provided under the cr.P.c., this petition is found to be not maintainable, particularly in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying interference under Article 226 1 0. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as being not maintainable. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedies available in law before the competent Court, if the cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as to costs' Pending miscellaneous applications' if any, shall stand closed' To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT RfctsTRAR ('- SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Ms. KARUNA GUTHA, Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two CCs to Gp for HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies BSR/MP HIGH COURT DATED: 1711012025 I IHE ri t ?'i. 1EIi:t 202[ * \)PArrl 1 t i ORDER WP.No.3532 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, WITHOUT COSTS JKJ 4fzf"e