Anchula Arunodaya v. '1 . The State of Telangana

5. Mr. G. Emmanuel Jaikar, S/o. Ranga Rao, Aged about 35 years Occ Builder Eden Towers, Madhavi Nagar, Hydershakote Vilbge, Ra.jendranagar Mandal, R R Dist. 6 N/r. G. John Jayakar, S/o. Ranga Rao, Aged about 37 years Occ Business Eden Towers, Madhavi Nagar, Hydershakote Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Consti{ution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Respondent No. 3 and 4 keeping silent on the representation given by the Petitioner to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Madhapur Zone which was endorsed to Respondent No.4 to take action as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the rules and also against principles of natural justice consequently direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 to take immediate steps on the representation of the Petitioner. I.A.NO:'l OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:36471 OF 2017) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court miy be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to make an enquire the case of the Petitioner immediately without any further delay by placing the report before this Hon'ble Court pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.A.KHADER (NONE APPEARED) Counsel forthe Respondent Nos,1 to 4 : AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.s & 6 : - The Court made the following ORDER i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 29303 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief ". ..lo issue wit or order or direction more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing action of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 keeping silent on the representalion given by the Petitioner to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Madhapur Zone, which was endorsed to Respondent No.4 to tat<e action, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the rules and also against pinciples of natural justice, consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to take immediate steps on the representation of the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders.. ."

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case-is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 31.O7 .2017 , the concerned Police authorities failed I I I I I !l I I I t I , I 2 MT&/ IV.P. No. 293U of 2017 to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a cflme.

6. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Saklrl Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), 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.") (now Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) ptovides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C , including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr P.C., rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court / ,/ / I -) Ivi-&/ V.P. No. 2%U oJ 2017 B. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, that wou{d warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not nraintainable. There shall be no erder as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHN SISTANT REGI SECTION OFFICER R HOME, High Court for tlp Telangana at 1 Two CCs to GP FO Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI M A KHADER, Advocate{OPUCI 3. Two CD Copies \ l I To SA BS c TAIE 3 2r J AII 2$26 ,l * a HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ORDER WP.No.29303 ot 2017 DISMISSING THE W.P AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS. /o \_J+r (- ,rrk