Potru Brahmananda Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

2. The Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, Khammam Presently 3. The Station House Officer, Burgampahad Police Station, Burgapahad 4. Mandava Gopamma, Wo. Krishna Reddy, aged 55 years Occ. House wife, 5. Mandava Sathi Reddy, S/o. Chinna Venkata Reddy, aged 50 years Occ. 6. Mandava Srinivas Reddy, Sio. Chinna Venkata Reddy, aged zto years Occ. agriculture agriculture

7. Mandava Krishna Reddy, S/o. Subbareddy, aged 50 years Occ, agriculture 8. Mandava Narsireddy, S/o. Subbareddy, aged 55 years Occ. agriculture 9. Mandava Sarojini, Wo. Narsireddy Aged 60 years, Occ. agriculture 10. Mandava Bhagyalatha, W/o. Sathi Reddy, aged 25 years Occ. house wife 1 1 . Mandava Mangamma, W/o. Chinna Venkatareddy, aged about 3O years Occ. house wife Respondents 4 to 11 are residents of Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Khammam District, Presently Bhadradri Kothagudem District ..,RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent police in not registering the case against the respondents 4 to 1 1 in-spite of petitioners complaint dated 13.07.2017 under Section 447 and 307 of IPC in connection with the petitioners land covered with Jamail Garden situated in Sy No. 207 to an extent of Ac.2.39 i gts and Sy No. 214 to an extent of Ac.1.31 gts of Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District while interim injunction orders passed in l.A- No. 1O3t2017 in O.S.No. 1OB12O17 dated 5.07.2017 on the file'of Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam is illegal and void and opposed to Article 14, 19,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent police to register the crime against the respondents 4 to 11 by taking necessary action by giving protection to the petitioner life and liberty including property l.A. NO: 1OF 2017 P. NO: 36401 OF 201 7l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent police to register a crime against the respondents 4 to 11 under Section 447 & 3O7 IPC basing on the written complaint of the petitioner dated 13.07.201 7, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MUMMANENI SRINIVA,SA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 'lto3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4to11: SRI P. VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY fhe Court made the following: ORDER i I ! THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.29258 ot 2017 ' ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following retief: "...to lssue a wit, order or direction, more particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, the action of the 3rd respondent police in not registering the case against the respondents 4 to 11 inspite of petitioners complainl dated 13.07.2017 under Section 447 and 307 of IPC in connection with the petitioners land covered with Jamail Garden situated in Sy-NO.207 to an extent of Ac.2.39 gts and Sy.No.214 to an extent of Ac.1 .31 gts of Sompalli Village Burgampahad Mandal Khammam District while interim injunction orders passed rh 1.A.No.103/2017 in O.S. No.10A2017 dated 05.A7.2A17 on the file of Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam is illegal and void and opposed to Artide 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent police to register the cime against the respondents 4 to 11 by taking ne@ssary action by giving protection to the petitioner life and libedy including propefty and to pass....."

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home 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 India, in view of the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

5. I have perused the material placed on record \ 2

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite having submitted a written complaint dated 13.07.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position on this issue is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakld Vasu v. Sfafe of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that where the grievance relates to refusal by the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. lnstead, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P C ") provides an adequate and efficacious mechanism to address such grievances. The Court emphasized that recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. before seeking intervention under Article 226.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in later decisions. Most notably, in M Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Ofhers (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in the event of police inaction, is to avail remedies provided under the Cr.p.C., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.p.C" for a direction tothe- 3 ,./ police to register an FlR, or initiating proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. The Court clarified that bypassing these remedies and directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is impermissible, save in exceptional or exlraordinary circumstances

9. ln light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any such exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Court finds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme under the Cr.P.C provides sufflcient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue those remedies in accordance with law should his grievance still persist

10. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition IS dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pendi if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI SISTANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, '.'

1. One CC to SRl. MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate tOIU-ql 2. o;; cc to sRt. P. VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY, Advocate {oPUCl 3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BM PVL \* HIGH COURT DATE D : 2 410912025 ORDER WP.No.29258 of 2017 {iiE s ir ,'A () o 2 { JAr{ 2026 t rA 'k DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1"d"\ FY-.^. -rilvt"