Takur Shivadayal Singh v. The State of Telangana

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief " ...to issue a writ, order or direction, more pafticulaly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing the action of the Respondent No.z for not registering lhe complaint of the Petilioner, dated 07.12.2017 against the Respondent No.3, as illegal arbitrary, violative of pinciples of natural justice and consequently, and pass... ... "

None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.'1 and 2.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner's representation daled 07.12.2017 was addressed to the District Educational Officer and not to the concerned police authorities. Consequently, since no representation was received by the police, no crime was registered. lt is further contended that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police to register a criminal case is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have perused the material placed on record.

The grievance of the petitioner is that despi: ( submitting a written complaint dated 07.12.2017, the police autt r .ities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such alleged rnaction, ll't oetitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a wr t of mandamus directing the police to register a crime.

The legal position governing such issues is well ; rttled. ln Sakrn Vasu v. Sfale of U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC 9(- , the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grie',r;r ce pertains to the refusal or failure of the police to register a First lnfo mation Report (FlR), the appropriate remedy is not to approach the l-li( h Court under Ariicle 226. The Court emphasized that the Corl r of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), provides a complete i dequate, and efficacious mechanism for redressal, and that such stat tory remedies must be exhausted before seeking the extraordinary 1u r sdictron of the High Court.

This principle has been consistently reaffirmed n subsequent judgments. ln M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Othert. AIR 2O2O SC 387, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme o >urt reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the remedies pror i led under the Cr. P.C., including filing an application under Section .t s6(3) Cr.P.C7' seeking a direction for registration of an FlR, or insti.r ting a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.p.C., instead of direc.l , invoking the 3 writ jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the High Court should not entertain such writ petitions except ln exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

ln light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court finds that the relief sought under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the Cr P C' provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrale, and the petitioner rs at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grlevance continue to subsist

. Accordingly, this Writ Petitron is dismissed as not maintainable There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 sEcTtoN oFFtcER Hyderabad. [OUT]

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Tetangana at 2. One CC to SRt K BUCHT BABU, Advocare [OpUCl 3. Two CD Copies To SA BM E,. HIGH COURT DATED:1 111112025 .1-- 3 iti': C ( ,1 o ,i j. \".rJ- \\. *'.i.-\: D ,c 2^\ (. :'. \ (ii :1 ltr6 i::.; '-; ii 3,'/*t/ 7',r,-t!1-1-).t// ORDER WP.No.14675 of 2018 DISMISSING THE W.P AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS. * \Pt^ oLY