1. Golusula Sathaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstan,:es 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 Marrdamus declaring the action of the respondents in not registering the Case on the Complaint dated 22-08-2016 filed by the petitioners and not issuing FIR and nct enquiring into the case basing on their complaint as illegal, arbitrary and agains:to the principles of naturaljustice. Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavi': filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the responrlents to register the case on the complaint dated 22-08-2016 filed by the petitiorrers by issuing FIR and by taking criminal action on the complaint, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondents: SRt R. LN(MIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court rnade the following: ORDER t".:: '. ::;:j I r " {, I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI N t6 ORDER: This Writ petition is flrled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking ttre following relief/s:- "...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of ll/ril of Mandantus cleclaring the action of the responclents in not registering the case on the comploint dated ZZLOA.20l6 fileil by the petitioners and not isstting FIR and not enqttiring intu rhe case basing on th.eir complaint as illegal, arbitrary and.atain11.t9 the principles ofnatural iustiie and to pass such other order or orders as this Ilon'ble Cottrt may cleent fit cmd proper in the circttnrstances of the case ' ' '" I have heard Mr. P.Narsirnhulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Z. Mr.R.Laxrnikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Horne appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4. Learned counsel for tl're petitioners Submitted that, pursuant to their 3. representation dated 22.08.2016, the police authorities failed to register a crirne/FlR. Consequently, counsel prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction to the Cornmissioner of Police or the competent officer to ensure registration of the case. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, however, contended

4. that a writ petition seeking such a direction for registration of a case is not 2 I have carefully considered the subrnissions advanced and perused the

5. rnaterial available on record.

6. The griev'ance of the petitioners is essentially that the concerned police authoriti:s lailed to register a case based on their representation dated

22.08.2016.'fhe relief sougtrt is a rnandarnus frorn this Court under Article226 of the Constitution of lndia, courpelling the police to register a crime.

7. At this stage, it is necessary to note the settled position of law. The Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Salciri Vasu r,. State o.f'U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, catr:gorically held that a writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not rnaintainable wliere the grievance pertains to the non-registration of an FIR, inasmuch as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now substantially replaced by the Bharativa Nagarik Sttrakslta Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable), provides au adequate and efficacious rernecly. The Court clarified that the appropriate course for an aggrieved person is to first invoke the statutory remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., rather than approaching;the High Court directly under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

8. The legal position was further reaffirrned by a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in M. Subrantaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387. The Court held ttrat in such circurnstances, the proper course is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by fiollowing the procedure prescribed in law, and not to directly invoke writ -jurisdiction. \ i''r g. 3 ln light of the above binding precedents, it is clear that the relief sought by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be granted. In the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circutnstances detnonstrated in the writ petition, this Colrrt cannot entertain the prayer for a mandamus to direct registration of a case. The statutory scherne provides adequate and efficacious rernedies before the cornpetent Magistrate, which the petitioners are at liberty to pursue in accor-dance with law, should the cause of action stilI subsist.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disrnissed as not maintainable. There shall be no orcler as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shalI stand closed. Sot- a. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri P. Narasimhulu, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] I

3. Two CD CoPies TJ BM c € 4:a HIGH COURT DATEET:2510812025 ORDEFI WP.No.31345 of 2016 S 1o tEB 2o?[ -/-_. -._llqi DISMISI}ING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOI.'T COSTS @*P' , 4t b Z\ \rl 24,