High Court · 2025

Petition under Arlicle 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent police in ...RESPONDENTS not taking any action against the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 pursuant to the complaint dl. 6-5-2017, inspite of the repeated visits made by the petitioners, as,being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent police to forthwith act upon the complaint dt. 6-5-2017 and to take action against the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in accordance with Law, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 25152 OF 2017\ Petition under Section l5'1 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 Respondent No.5 herein to forthwith register the Criminal Case against the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 pursuant to the Complaint d1.06.05.2017, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.MALLESHAM, rep., SRI SHAIK JILANI Counsel for the Respondents No.1to5 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.6&7 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.20524 OF 2017 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed lvith the following reiiel "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent police in not taking any action against the respondent Nos.6 arrd 7 pursuant to the complaint dt. 6-5-2017, inspite of the repeated visits made by the petitioners, as,being illegat, arbitrary and unjust and consequenfly direct the respondent police to forthwith act upon the complaint dt. 6-5-2017 anti to take action against the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in accordance with I-aw, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as tiis Honble Court deems ht and proper in the circumstances of the case ald in the interest ofjustice..."

2. Heard Mr.G.Mallesham, learned counsel representing Mr. Shaik Jilani, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appeadng lor respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to his representation dated O6.05.2017, the police authorities failed to register a Crime/FiR. Consequently, he prays for issualce of an appropriate direction to the Superintendent of Police or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case. 1

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, however, submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction compelling the police authorities to register a criminal case is not maintainabie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in light of the well-settled lega1 position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the materials piaced on record

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submitting a written complaint dated O6.05.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary.lurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and in Sakiri Vastt u. Sto,rr. of U.P. &, Others (AIR 2OOa SC 9OZl, the Hon,ble Supreme Court J- categorically theld that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a 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 an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

8. This principle has been consistently realfirmed in subsequent judicia-l pronolirrcements. Most notably, in M. ' . Subramaniam a. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2O2O SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Flon'bie Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., inciuding approaching the Magistrate under Sections 155(3) or 2OO Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the rvrit jurisdiction of the High Court.

9. In vie'"r, of the settied legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the conrention of the petitioner is held to be not I AIR 2o2o sc :i87 ' .tlR :OOS SC q0; I -1 maintainable. Nevertheless, the petitioner 1S at liberty to avaii such appropriate remedies as are available to him in lau', should the cause of action sti1l subsist.

10. Accordingly, ald in light of the above liberty, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There sha-ll be no order as to costs. Misceilancous Petitions, pending if any, shail stand closecl. To, 1 2 3 SD/. SRI T ASS . SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI SHAIK JlLANl, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the S of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD CoPies. BSK BM Yd- I HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 I I f,rtE SIATS 3 rtB ?026 L i * a ORDER WP.No.20524 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS CrL rpV-q$, 'e\'