Janqili Venkateshwarlu v. I 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 pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ [Vlandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.3, in not registering crime against the respondent No.5 herein upon my complaint dated 11.05.2022, sent through speed post vide EN4229245331N U/s '1 54 of CRPC is illegal' arbitrary, voilative of principals of natural justice and against the article 1 4, 19, 21 and 300-4 constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to register the criminal case against the respondent No.5 upon the complaint made by the petitioner herein sent through speed post vide EN4229245331N U/s 154 of CRPC forthwith lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fileJ in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to register the criminal case against the respondent No.S upon the com[rlaini made by the petitioner herein sent through speed post vide EN4229245331N U/s 154 of CRPC forthrvith lA NO: 2 OF 2(t22 Between: Jgngili \/enkateshwarlu, s/o Sathaiah, aged about 46 years, r/o phanigiri village, l,lagaram Mandal, Suryapet Distric[. TS ... Petitioner/Petitioner AND 1 The State of Te. langana rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Departmemt, Secreta'iat Building, Hyderabad 2 J 4 5 o The Din:ctor General of Police, Lakdi Ka pool at Hyderabad The Superintendent of Police, Suryapet District The Station House Offrcer, Nagaram PS.. and t\r1andal, Suryapet District The Asr;t. Sub-lnspector of Police, Nagaram pS and Mandal, Suryapet District K. Venllateshwar Reddy, s/o, Not Known, aged : 58 years, occ: assistant sub inspectr:r of Police, at Nathankal Police Station at Suryapeta District, T.S. ...lmpleading Respondent No.6 Proposed Respondent No. 6 Petitiorr under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.p.C. r/w. Section 151 CpC praying that in the circum:;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be permit the implead the respondent /proposed respondent No.6 to implead as party respondent to the w.p.No.26338 12022 in lhe interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J. RAGHURAM !9g1sel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to S: SRt R. LAXMTKANTH REDY, AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.26338 OF 2022 ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in not registering Crime against the respondent No.5 upon his complaint dated

11.05.2022. A consequential prayer is sought to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to register the criminal case against respondent No.S upon his complaint.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. 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 lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. I have carefully perused the materials placed on record.

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint lodged by him on 11.05.2022, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 2 -- 226 of lhe C.onstitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

6. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longrrr res integra.ln Sakin Vasu v. State of IJ.P. & Others', the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to tlre refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the n:medy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily nct available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides 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 & Clthers2, 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 direcfly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. B. ln liErht of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant .::O,,onr' rAtR 2008 s,c 907 '? AtR 2020 s,c 387 3 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. g. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be po order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJ UNA RAO ISTANT //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI J' RAGHURATVI' Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two ccs to GP FOR HOIME, High court for the State of Telangana' [oUT] 3. Two CD CoPies PVL TKS dt- HIGH COURT DATED:1 810912025 ORDER WP.No.26338 of 2022 1 HE ll3 ir F ( t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOI MAINTAINABLE WTHOUT COSTS @ ^-Ir..\-\26