'1. Athram Gangubai v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ d€claring the action of the respondents 7 no.2 to 4 in not registering a FIR basing on a complaint by J 8-8-2016 even though the contents of the said complaint c1t offences, which are cognizable and non-bailable and not takil the culprits, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and \ of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 c e petitioners, dated arly constitutes the I any action against olative of principles r the Constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions of Schedule Castes i nd Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and also the provisions o1 Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, direct the respondents no.2 to 4 to rerl ster a F.l.R. basing on the complaint fited by the petitioners, dated 8-8-2016 i nd take necessary action basing on it. |.A.NO:1 OF 2016 (WPMP.NO:35138 QF 2010) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to direct the respondents no.2 to 4 to register a F.l.R. basing or the complaint filed by the petitioners, dated 8-8-2016 and take necessary action I asing on it. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDD\', GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER .tITE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.28375 OF 2015 ORDER: This Writ Petition is fi led under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief/s:- ",.-to issrtc on order or tlit-?ction norc purticularl.y one in the nolure of wrtt of rnarulontus or any olher qplrt'optiote n't it declaring thc nction of lhe respondents N<ts.2 to 4 in not ft,gisto'ing a FIR bosing ott o co Plaint hy the petitioners dated 08.08.2016 even though lhe contents of the soitl comphint cleorly constitutcs lhe oflences u'hich ure cogniztltle orul nonbttilable ond not hking 4't)| ttclion ugoinsl lhe cL Prils is nothi g hul arbitntry, illegal, null and witl qntl violotive of principles ol natural Justicc ond olso violotit'e of Atticles 14, l9antl 2Iof lhc Constilulion of Indiaondolso liolativc of the pro'r'isions t{ Schetlulc Cusles ond Schetlule Tribes Prevention oJ' Atrocitias Act, 1989 antl olxt the prortsions of Criminol Procedure Code Consequently .lirect the rcspondents Nos.2 to 4 to registet F I R bosing on the conrylaint lled by the petitioners tlcttetl 08.08.2016 and klkc necess(t1' (tcliotl bosing on it. . ."

2. I have heard Mr. K. Venutnadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Laxrnikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant Government Pleader fot IJorne appearing lor respondent Nos. I to 4. J. Learned counsel ior the petitioners would submit that respondent Nos.2 to 4 failed to register the crirne basing on the police report dated 08.08'2016. Consequently, learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to ensure registration of the case.

4. Leamed Assistant Govemtnent Pleader for Home subrnits that it is not settled that the petitioner cannot invoke Section 226 of Constitution ol India for direction for registration of crirne except availing the altemative rernedies available under law. ') I have perused the materials on record The essence of the petitioners' grievance is that restr rndent Nos.2 to 4

6. failed to register a case based on the police reporl lated 08'08'2016' consequently, the petitioner seeks a direction frorn this cort under Atticle 226 of the Constitution of India to cornpel the police to register I riure' T.lnthisregard,theHon'blesuprerneCourtinSakirit/rsuvStateofUP' & others, AIR 2008 sc 907, has laid down that a writ p,r ition under Article 226 is ordinarily not rnaintainable when the grievance Jx rlains to the non- registration of an FIR, inasmuch as the code of crirninal I rocedure (cr.P.c.) provides an adequate and efficacious rernedy. Fotlowinl: this principle, this Courl, in Govincl Raju Sami v. State of Telangana,20l9 Sr- I Online TS 3491, reiterated that a petitioner rnust exhaust the statutory retnec ies available under the cr.P.c. (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik sural sha sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) before invoking the writ jurisdiction o[ ,he High court.

8. This legal position has been further reinforced by a rl ree-judge Bench of tlre Hon'ble Suprerne Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Jo1*i & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387, wherein it was clarified that the appropriate rt oredy in such cases is to approach the Magistrat'e under the procedure contenr[ lated in law, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction. J

9. In vicw of the settled legal position, the relie I sought by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained, particularly in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances dernonstrated in the writ petition. The scherne of law provides adequate and efficacious rernedies before the cornpetent Magistrate, which the petitioners is at liberty to pu$ue in accordance with law, should the cause of action still subsist.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disrnissed as not rnaintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// D/-M.JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To '1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate [O 3. Two CD Copies (s- SA PMK PUC] c HIGH COURT DATED:1410812025 ORDER WP.No.28375 of 2016 / :i\ ,l\r ';\ ;' I r! [tcm ,- a, il, i(:,'l; r! DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. (u G[&;-