Ms. Sri Rekha v. Secretariat, Hyderabad

lnstruments Group, Rl/o Plot No.80, East Part, Sri Enclave, NRI Colony, Yellareddyguda, Ranqareddy District, Hyderabad-500062. ...RESpONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in not taking action against respondent No.5 who was illegally blackmailing and threatening the petitioner and her daughter Shagun aged about 5 years by filing false claims and by harassing petitioners parents residents of A.S.Nagar, R.R.District, Hyderabad by creating, forging the documents and harassing petitioner mentally and physically and forcing the petitioner for leading Adulterous life with respondent No.s is utter failure of implementation of providing protection for petitioner's life which is gross violation of Article 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequentially praying this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondent No.5 not to do any harm to the petitioner and her daughter and also aged parents. t.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 7954 OF 2017) 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 respondents 'l to 4 to take preventive action against respondent No.5 not to threaten and harass the petitioner and also her family, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. VIJETHA BORUKKATI (NOT PRESENO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRI R.LAffiIKANTH REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FOR HOME THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETlTlOl.l No. 6a95 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...to r.ssue a Writ, Order or Direction more parliculady one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaing the action of the rcspondent Nos.l to 4 in not taking action against respondent No.S who was illegally blackmailing and threatening the petitioner and her daughter Shagun aged about 5 years by fiting false claims and by harassing petitionels parents resrdenfs of A.S. Nagar, R.R. Distict, Hyderabad, by creating forging the documents and harassing petitioner mentally and physically and forcing the petitioner for leading Adulterous life with respondent No.S is utter failure of implementation of providing protection for petitionels life which is rn gross violation of Arlicle 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequentially praying this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondent No.S not to do any harm to the petitioner and her daughter and also aged parents and pass such other order or orders...".

2. None appeared for the petitioners

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that, as per the petitioner, she has lodged a complaint dated 10.11.2016, however, no such report was received by the Police or any other crime has been registered. He further pleads that the relief sought in the present writ 2 petition-namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case-is not maintainable under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal

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

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaints dated 10.11.2016, 14.01 .2017 and 22-12.2015, respondents/Police authorities failed to register a case against respondent No.S, who is threatening her. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

6. The explanation of the respondents/Police authorities is that no complaint has been placed before the Police.

7. Nonetheless, the legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakn Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") (now Bharatiya Nagarik J Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Ofhers (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifled 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 directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court

9. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Arlicle 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 her grievance still subsist. 't0. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. SRI T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C.? SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To \

1. One CC to Ms. VIJETHA BORUKKATI' Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

3. Two CD Copies PSK HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 ORDER WP.No.6495 of 2017 STA ,t C) C) 1 0 ttB 2026 * l)r- .... ...,-..:. , t v I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,rfu @ 4/, w'. 2l ,I )4