The High Court · 2025

Y. Ravi Shekar, S/o. Y.Venkateswara Rao R/o. Plot No. 109,2"d Floor, Jyothi Priyamwada Orchid Ratnadeep super lt/la rket Lane, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 033. B.Srinivasa Rao, S/a. Venkaiah R/o. Plot No. 1209, H.No.8-3-320/1/5/A, Ground Floor, Sai Sarathi Nagar, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-500 073. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 specifically one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents ( 1 ) to (3) in not registering the crime and not taking up of investigation in the matter basing upon the information of the petitioner dt. 09.05.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to law and violate the Articles 14 and 2 1 of the Constitution of lndia and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to register the crime and investigate into the matter on the basis of the information submitted by the petrtioner herein dl. 9.O5.2017 in accordance with law specifically completing the said investigation within three months. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017 WPMP. NO: 23405 OF 20'17 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to recover I\ilOU's dt. 20.02.2017 and the cheques mentioned therein from the respondents 4 and 5 and any other person having & possession of the same pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. KRISHNA MOHAN (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 & 6: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.19219 OF 2OL7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is llied under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...ro issue a writ order or direction tnore specificallu one ln the noture of urit of mandamus declarinq the inection of the Respondents (1) to (31 in trct reqisteinq the cime and not takinq up of inestiqation in the matter basirtq upon the infonnotion of the Detitioner dt. 09.05.2017 as illeqal , arbitronl, disciminatoru, contraru to LaLa and uiolate the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution cf lndia arrd direct lhe resportdents 1 to 3 to register tt e cime qnd inuestiqate NLto the nlatter on the basis of the trtformation submitted bu the petitioner herein dt. 9.O5.2A17 in accordance with taw speciftcatlu cornplettno the satd inuestiqatiotl tL\thin three rnonths and pass such other order or orders in th.e interest of justice..-."

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistar-rt Government Pleader for Home appea,ring lor respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6.

4. The learned Assistant Ciovernment Pleader sr-lbmits that the respondent-police authorities received the petitioner's complaint/report dated 09.O5.2OI7 and, aJter conducting a preliminary enquiry, found that the matter pertained to a civil dispute. Consequently, the complaint was 1 - closed on 20.06.2017, and due notice of such closure was issued to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the grievarce raiscd in t l-re u rit petition does not survive for con side ratio n.

5. I have 1;errrsed the material placed on record 6 . Tl-re petit ioner contends that the respondent-police authoritie s lajled 1o regislcr a crime and to take up investigation on tlre basis of his report. However, the clevelopments reportt:d by tire learned Assistant Government Pleader indicatc that the respondent-police authorities have duly a<:tecl trpon the compJaint by conducting a preliminary enquiry and taking a considered decision to close the matter, treating it as a civil clispute

7. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is genuinely aggrieved by the alleged inaction or non-registration of a case by the police, he has efhcacious statutory remedies available under the Code of Crimina-l Procedure, 1973. The petitioner coulcl have invoked the provisions of Sections 154(3), 156(3), or 200 Cr.p.C., as the case may be. Without availing such remedies, invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India is impermissible. It has be en consistcntly held by the Hon'lcle Supreme Conrt that, approaching this Court under Article 226 has been deprecated by the Honble Supreme Court in a Three-Judge Bench between M. Subranno,nia,nt u. S.Janakit., rvherein it has been held that categoricaily terms with approval of the illegal of tlre dictum in piacing Solcin Vas-u a. State of U.P. and Other9, that where a remedy under the Cr.P.C. IS available, a rvrit petition seeking directions for registration or invcstigation ol a crime should not be entertained, even though the ar.,erments of the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence.

8. This being the legal position, the petitioner's contention for registration of crime calnot be maintained. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the rights of the petitioner are reserved to avail appropriate ' atR zozo sc l8z t ein 2oo8 sc qol 4 .- \.i remedies available under 12qr, if the cause still survives. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions. pending if any, shall stand closed To \ SD/- B.REKHA RANI SS TANT REGISTRAR f ,TRUE COPY/i ECTION OFFICER I . One CC to SR B. KRISHNA l\lOHAN, Advocate I P cl 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies IVP TKS d.q HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 1HES J h .Y ' _l- 3 ti tn rl t ORDER WP.No.19219 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS rr\'\'r