High Court · 2025

2. Sri tr.4astan Parthasarthi, S/o Late Gangaram aged 24 years, Rl/o H.No. 4-5- 35, Jamrnenjetti Galli, Armoor Town, NIZAMABAD District AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Nizambad City, Nizamab'ad The Station House officer, P.S. Armoor, Armoor, Nizamdbad District ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 in the form of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent no- 2 in not taking action against the Respondent no.3 and its officers on a complaint dated 08.02.2017 for beating the petitioner no.2 in the police station without registering any crime, as illegal, arbitrary and against the law and also in violation of the fundamental rights and the constitutlon guarantees contained in Article 1 4, 19, Article 300 A of the constitution of lndia amounting to overreaching of the powers and consequently direct the Respondent no.2 to take action by registering a crime against the said police officers along with departmental enquiry. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP NO: 10096 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r; -cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoJ 1 may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representatio. Dt.B-2-ZO1l , pending disposal of this Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AADESH VARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER TIIB HONOURABI-B SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRI'I' PETITION No.8182 OF 2017 ORDER: This Wlit Petition is filed under Arlicle 226 of Constilutiou of India seeking the fbllorving reliefTs:- " ' to r'rsrc tr ll'tu' oricr ctt dirt'ction uorc Ptltii(:ularly in the 'lot'm ol lli'it ol Motulttnus, tle(:ktnng the oction of Respttntlenl Ntt-2 itt not ktki g a(1k'n ogaitlsl lhc Respt,nlt:nt No I urd it.; tfliters ott o contplaint dated 0802.2017 for bcatutg rht' pettttottLr No.2 in tht poli<t: sLtrtion wilhoul tegistc/irt!, n\'{:rime' rrt illegol urbttrurt' onl t!!un\l lhe lttw untl also i t i(,lutio)1 of tha findortotal t ights u(l thc 'otlstitulion sLtot'd1)t!t)s t:otttuincrl in ,1rtit!e 11. l9'.1rticlt: -100 A o/ thc colt\ttttlion (i Idio antountin! Io ()\'t't t it(ltiltg al lhe pott'o-.\ anl tonsetlutnlll' lo dirrd llrc Respttntltnt i\o.) to ttkc uctit)tt ht, reglverblg u crine Igttitlsl the util police oflicars olottg tith deptrrrnr'ttrtrl r:nquit r ..."

2. I havc hcard N4r.Aatlesh Varlna, learned cttunsel fol the petittoncrs an(l Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, leameri Assistant Government Pleader for Horne appearing for respondeut Nos.l to J. i- 'Learuecl coutlsol tbr the petitiollcrs sublnitted that, pLlrsuaut to their rcpresentarion dated 08.02.2017, the policc lailed to register a Crirnc/FIR. Consecluently, counsel prayed lor issuance of an appropriate directior to the Commissioner of Police or the offiCer concerned to ensure registratioll of the CASC

4. Learned Assistant Governtnent l'ieader lor ilome contended that a writ petition seeking a direction for registration ofa case is not rnaintainable. in view ol the settlcd legal positiott. 2 I have carctu[[y pcruscd thc material available on t-ecc 'tl I fhc csscuco of the pctitioner's grievance is tl-rat tr r concetnecl police

6. authorities lailed to rogistcr a casc on the basis of his ' presentatiou dated

08.02.20 17. I'he lelie f sought is for- a dilcction liom this I our1. under Article 226 ol tho CloListitution o1'lndia, conrpelling thc police to re,r ster r crilnc

7. In this corltcxt. it is perlinerrt to note that the Hon'bi, Supletne Court in Sdtiri I/ostt t'. Srat, csl ( i.P. & Otlu'r.t. AIR 2008 SC 907, ha r catcgorically held that a rvrit petition undel Articlc 216 is ordiuarily t.tot rn; i itainablc rvheu the grier.ance relate\ to tlie notr-registration ol'an FIR. as the Code of Clrirninal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) provicles an aclequate antl efficacious crnecly. Following tlris principlc, this Cour1, in Govind Raju Sami v. State of' T,: ,tngana,20 l9 SCC Online TS 349 l. reiteratec{ that a petitioner lnust first e} laust the statutory rernedics availablc unclcr the Cr.l'.C. (now rcplaccd by th: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sarrhita.2023, r.vhcrevel applicable) belore invol<ir g thc cxtraordinary writ jurisdiction ol'the FIrgh Courl

8. This legal position lras beeu further rcaffinned by a tl'ee-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme C'ourt in fu[. Subromaniam v. S. .Iatllii & Others. AIP. 2020 SC 387, wherein it rvas clarifled that the propcr course in such cases is to approach the Magistratc under thc procedure contelnplate(l in [arv, rather than - 4irectly invoking n rit jurisdiction 3

9. In light of the abovc settled legal position, the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia cannot be entertained, pafiicularly in the absence of any exceptional or cxtraordinary circurnstances dernonstrated in the rvrit pctition. The statutory fiatnewot-k provides adequate and cU'icacious rernedies betbre the compctent Magistrate, whioh the petitioner is at Iiberty to pulsue in accordance lvith law, should the cause of action still SUTVIVC

10. Accorclingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not uraintainable. There shalI be no ordcr as to costs- Miscellaneous Petitions, pcnding if any, shall stand closed SD/-AH ED ABDULLAH KHA A ISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . One CC to SRI AADESH VARL,IA, Advocate. [O 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the Hyderabad. [OUT] Sta Telangana at

3. Two CD Copies. BSK BS d4(L ,:+.ig€a::::rj HIGH COURT DATED:2510812025 ,::fitrr.: O O 2 1 JrN 2026 t L^- ORDER WP.No.8182 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @*l*