The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangna Rep by its Principal Secretary, (Home department ) 2. The Commissioner of police Cyberabad at Gachibowli. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Cyberabad. at L.B.nagar. 4. The Station House Officer/ Circle lnspector of Police, Vansthalipuram Police 5. tt/.V.V.Satyanarayana @ Satish, S/o.tt/SR Prasad, Aged. 34 years, Occ. PVT Job, Plot No.290, Road No.4, NGOs Colony, Sri Srinivas Puram Colony, Vanstahlipuram, (RR Dist)Hyderabad. Station , Cyberabad Commisionerate at Vanstahalipuram .

6. f\rl.Suryamacha Rao, S/o.tr/SR Prasad, Aged. 33 years, Occ. PVT Job, Presntly Fl/o. Mothi Nagar. C/oPlot No. 290, Road No.4, NGOs Colony, Sri Srinivas Puram Colony, Vanstahlipuram, (RR Dist)Hyderabad.

7. Sri Naresh, S/o. Not known to the Complainant, Age. tt/ajor, Occ. Not known to the Complainant, Rio. C/oPlot No.290, Road No.4, NGOs Colony, Sri Srinivas Puram Colony, Vanstahlipuram , (RR Dist) Hyderabad.

8. Sri Rambabu, S/o. Not known to the Complainant, Age. Ivlajor, Occ. Not known to the Complainant, R/o. C/o Plot No- 290, Road No-4, NGOs Colony, Sri Srinivas Puram Colony, Vanstahlipuram, (RR Dist)HydellRttrOrUrr*r, Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an order, direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of A/andamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the inaction of the Police in not registering FIR on the complaint given on 25.02.2016 by the petitioner and nol taking any action against the respondents 6 to 8 (ii) and consequently direct the respondent - Police to investigate as Special lnvestigation Team to take appropriate action if possible with SHE TEAM as CALL MONEY CASE. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. N O:11251 OF 2016) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court nr, y be pleased direct the respondents No. I to4 to register FIR on Respondents Nc. 5 to o basing on the complaint made by the petitioner on 25-2-2016 pending dispo ;al of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt G.L.NARASIMHA RAO (NOT ,RESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos..l TO 4: AGp FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.5 TO g: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WR TPETITION No.8874 OF 2076 ORDER: This Vrit Petition is filed with the following relief: "... to issue an order, direction panicularly one in rhe nature of Vrir of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (! declare the inaction of the Police in nor rcgistering FIR on rhe complaint given on 25.02.2016 by rhe petitioner and not taking any action against the respondenr 6 to S (fl and consequently_direcr rhe respondent - Police to investigate.s Sp".i"l Investigation Team to ulre appropriate action if possible iltt Sru TifAM as CALL MONEY CASE and pass..... "

2. None appean on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Fleard leamed Assistant Govemmenr pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

4. The leamed Assistant Govemmenr pleader for Home submimed 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 Corutirution of IndiE in view of the well-senled legal position laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Coun. 5 I have carefullyperused the materials placed on record. 2

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite - submiaing a writren complaint dated 25.02.2016, the concemed police authorities failed to register a case. Aggr Leved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ juri Jiction of this Court under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of Ind: , seeking a writ of mandamus directrng the police authorities to reg i rer a cr-ime.

7. The legal position goveming such maften is ' vell seuled and n Sakii l/a.vr u. State of tl.P. d. Others (AIR 200iSC 907),the Hon'ble Supreme Court categoncally held that wh,: r the grievance penains to the refusal of the police to register a Fi st Information Report (FIR), recourse under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the G,,[e of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (G.P.C") provides an adequate rnd efficacious statutory frarnework to address such grievances. 8 This principle has been consistently reiterate; in subsequent decisions. Most notably, ln M. Subrananiam u. S. I maki dy Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the lJ< n'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrie ,red parq/ is ro 3 pursue remedies provided under the Cr.P.C, including filing an application before the Magistrate under Sections 155(3) or 200 G.P.C, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Flgh Court.

9. In light of these settled principles, and in the absence of arry exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Coun r.rnder Anicle 226,, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The statutory scheme r.rnder the G.P.C provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberry to avail such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still survive.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall smnd closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A MED ABDULLAH SISTANT R N R TRA CTION OFFICER 'I . One CC to SRI G.L.NARAS|MHA RAO, Advoca 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR HOIVIE, High Court for the to UC ate f Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies To 3 PSK. BSR HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 ORDER WP.No.8874 of 2016 ==)r E c TA t ,{ o\ Y o() ? 3 iAtr 2026 .l )... DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ry^)