The High Court · 2025

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 lssue an order, direction particulariy one in the nature of Writ of Il4andamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the inaction of the respondent No.3 in not taking any action basing on the complaint Dated. 3-6-2017, against the culprits stated so, who are extorting money and property wrth dire consequences and will be attract the cognizable offences, no proper steps has been taken by the respondent which leads panic situation to the petitioner and likewise people in city consequently direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to appoint special investigation Team ( SIT) to take appropriate severe action against the culprits for control them, while registerrnq case from extortion and life threats to the petitioner and his family members as well as project and properties. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 27128 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 No. 1 to 3 to appoint special investigatior I )am ( SIT) to take appropriate severe action against the culprits for control th -. r while registering case, from extortion and life threats to the, petitioner and hi:, amily members as well as project and properttes Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt G.LNARASIMHA RAO (NOT I RESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.22O3l of 2OL7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed r.r,ith the following relief "...to Issue an order, directon particttlarLy one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus ctr ang other appropiate wit (i) declare the inaction of the respondent No.3 in not taking any action basing on the complaint Dated. 3-6-2017 , against the culpits stated so , u.tho are ertorting moneg and propertg uith dire consequences and tuill be attract the cogniz,able offences , no proper sleps has been taken bg the respondent u.thich leads panic situation to the petitioner and likeu.tise people tn citg consequently direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to oppotnt Special Inuestigation Team (SIT) to take appropiate seuere oction against the cttlpits Jor control them , u.thile regi.steing cose from ertortton and ltfe threots to the petitioner and his family members as uelL as project and properties and 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, name'ly, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view ol the well-settled lega1 principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essenc,: s tl,rat despite having submitted a written comptaint dated Cl .06.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a ( rse. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approac t:d this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, s::king a u,rit of mandamus directing the police authorities to regi ,r,er a crime. 7 . The legal position on this issue is well s :ttled and no longer res integra. In Sakln Vasu u. State of 'J.p. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon,ble Supreme Cour, categorically held that where the grievance relates to refusal t v the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), t _. : appropriate remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of r1 r: High Court. Instead, the Code of Criminal procedure, l ! 73 (,,Cr.p.C.,,) provides an adequate and efhcacious mechan s m to acldress such grievalces. The Court emphasized that re(t rurse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.p.C. ;efore seeking intervention under Article 226. B. This principle has been consistently reaff rmed in later decisions. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam , S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bencl rf the Hon,ble Supreme Court reiterated that the proper . ) urse for an aggrieved party, in the event of police inaclir r, is to avail remedies provided under the Cr.p.C., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. lor a direction to the police to register an FIR, or initiating proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private compiaint. The Court clarified that bypassing these remedies ald directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is impermissible, save in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

9. In light of these authoritative pronouncements, arrd in the ,. absence of aly such exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Court finds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 carinot be entertained. The statutory scheme ' trhder the Cr.P.C. provides sufficient arld efhcacious 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, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Miscelianeous Petitions, pending if any, sha1l stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -.. /Q \_-,/ SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 PSK. SA ?il:33Jii3i".5iaBt^?.'iia^T"1.1:Iff 3'3[",:yi+e,ansana,at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD CoPies -t- HIGH COURT DATED:1311012025 I I I ORDER WP.No.22031 of 2017 /t' -'! (r tEB 2026 (t c) J'- -ll Dr:: l-l DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION / AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS .aJ co? (L) #, "\ ^n"