High Court · 2025

I3:*138,:[13:?:ffir, The Director General of Police, , Government of Telangana, Telangana State Police Headquarters, Hyderabdd-Soo _004. The District Collector, Khammam District Khammam The Superintendent of Police, Khammam District Khammam The lntegrated Tribal Development.Agency, Bhadrachalam rep by its project Officer Bhadrachalam Khamri.ram Distiict The Thasildar, Dummugudern Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana State. Dummugudem P.S., Khammam District,

6. 7. The Station House Officer Telangana State. 8. The Gram Pancha Secretary Byaragulapadu Village, Rep by its. panchavat Mandal, Khammam DiBtrict, Tblanlana State. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Arricre 226 of the constitution of rndia 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 particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decrare the action of the Respondents in not properly responding or completing the investigation with regard to the my complaints dt. 10-03-2016 and 28-03-2016 in violation of section i54 cr.p.o and also violation of illegal, discrimination and un-constitutional, against to the principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and apart from being viotative of scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 and the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, .t 995, Rule 7 (2) and the Rules therein and consequenfly direct to the Respondents as per scheduled castes and Scheduled rribes (prevention of Atrocities) Rures, 1995, Rure 7 (2). 1 1 ' Petition uflder section i51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to take immediate action on the representations complaints dt. 't0-03.2016 and 28.03.2016 forthwith in comptaints dt. 10-3-2016 and 28.03.2016 forthwith in compriance with the schedured Gastes and scheduled rribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19g9 and the schedured castes and scheduled rribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Rures, 1995, Rure 7(2) and the therein pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DASARI.S.V.V.S.V.pRASAD lror enesemy Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 2,4 & 7: SRt R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY P FOR HOME Counsel for the No.3 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR SOCTAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRt K.PRADEEP KUMAR REDDY, SC FOR ZPP The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI OR ER: This Writ Petition is filed under Articl-e 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliefls:- "... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of rwrit of Mandamus ro decla.e the action of. the. Respondents in nor prope.ly *p""di'g; completing the investigation with reg"rd' to'the ^p.,itioi.r. cornplaints dated L0.ot.2oL6 and 2g.53.20L6 in violation of section 154 G.P.Q ,g."i*t to. the principles of natural jusdce and violation of ftrndamental righ6 g,rr"rrrt..d urrd.. th. c-onstitution of India and violationlf Aii.L, 14,19 and,2l of the constitution of India and apan from beini .,,ioilt; ;f scheduled Castes and Scheduied Tribes @?."."ri* "i At-r-ocities) Act, 1989 and the Scheduled c_astes and scheduled Tribes @revention of Atrocities) Rule s, r995,Rule z (2) ;;h; Rules therein and consequently4ioq to rhe ir.rp""d.rit ;;;; scheduled Gstes and scheduled Tribes @rerrentioo'oi Atrocities) Rules, l995,Rule Z (2) and ro pass... ,,

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

3. I have heard Mr. R Laxmikanth Reddy, learned fusistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l., 2, 4 and7.

4. Learned fusistanr Government pleader for Home would :"bT, that the respondent-police never received any complaint 2 from the petitioner neither on 10.03.2016 nor on 28.03.2016. Thus the question of registration of crime or conducting investigation does not arise and the pra1rer in the petition is lmproper.

5. I have perused the materials on recorrd.

6. It is well sefiled law that in the case the police have failed to register a case on the basis of anycomplaint/representation/reporr, the petitioner has adequate remedies under Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatila Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 20D) such as approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 15a(3) of G.P.C and thereaftei to move the lvlagistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C Thus, legal position has been set out by the Ftrcn'ble Supreme C-ourt in Sakii Vasu a. State Of U.P. and Others (AIR 2005 SC 907), and fonified by a three Bench judgment in M. Sabramuniam a. S. Janaki (AIR 2020 SC 387), by holding that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the C-onstitution of India, filed solely for the purpose of seeking registration of an FIR, 3 $ not , since effective altemative remedies are available under the statutory fiamework 7 In view of the semled legal position, this writ petition is held to be not mainrainable 8 Accordingly this uTrit perition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// Sd/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI DASARI.S.V.V.S.V.PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP KUMAR REDDY, SC FOR ZPP [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

4. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

6. Two CD Copies (P BSR PMK HIGH COURT 19108t202s \ { irlr- s:/+ J-6 '.) 1, 22 Bir &l i -! E.t WP.No.15589 of 2016 1 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (s- Lf 6