The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, Telangana State. The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District, Telangana State. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mancheriyal, Mancheriyal District, Telangana State. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Mancherial Town, Mancherial District, Telangana State. Sri D. Sudhakar, S/o.Not known to the petitioner, Aged about 48 years, Occ Circle lnspector of Police, Police Station Mancherial Town, Mancherial District, Telangana State. Sri V.Venugopal Rao, S/o. Not known to the petitioners, Aged about 45 years, Occ Sub-lnspector of Police, Police Station Mancherial Town, Mancherial District, Telangana State.

8. Sri Kondu Ramachander Rao, S/o. K.V.Kishen Rao, Occ Sr.Journalist, R/o. Ashok Road, Mancherial Town Mancherial District, Telangana State. Aged about 75 years, , Near Vasant Talkies, 9. Sri Kondu Prabhavathi, Wo. Ramachander Rao, Aged 65 years, Occ Housewife, Fl/o. Ashok Road, Mancherial Town, Near Vasant Talkies, Mancherial District, Telangana State

10.Sri Kondu Aravind Rao, S/o. Ramachander Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ Business, R/o. Ashok Road, Mancherial Town, Near Vasant Talkies, Mancherial Diskict, Telangana State

11. Sri G.V. Vansuman Rao, S/o. G.V. Murali Manohar Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ Business, R/o. Nasapur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District, Telangana State.

12.Sri G V.Anand Krishna, S/o. G.V. Rajasimha Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ Business, C/o. Thanneeru Anjan Rao, D.E., RWDS Department, Hi{ech City, Mancherial Mancherial District, Telangana State. ...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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to 5 not registering the complaints dated 18.2.2017,20.2.2017,21 .2.2017 and 15.7.2016 respectively, which were lodged by the petitioners against the respondents 6 to 12 and the said action of the respondents may be declared as illegal, arbitrary, u n co nstitutiona I and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently the respondents 2 to 5 may be directed to register the complaints dated 18.2.2017,20.2.2017,21 .2.2017 and 15.7 .2016 respectively lodged by the petitioners and investigate the matter and punish the respondents 6 to 12 in accordance with law l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 12872 OF 20171 Petition under Section 1 51 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 2 to 5 to register the complaints dated 18.2.2017, 20.2.2017. 21 .2.2017 and 15.7.2016 respectively lodged by the petitioners and investigate the matter by independent authority and punish the respondent 6 to '12 in accordance with law, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. MOHAMMED HABEEBUDDIN REP SRI T, SUDHAKA,R REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1toS: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6to12: -- The Court made the following: ORDER .THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 10391 OF 2017 ORDER Thrs Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "...1o /ssue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action on the paft of the respondents 2 to 5 not registering the complaints dated 18.2.2017,

20.2.2017, 21 2.2017 and 15.7.2016 respectively, which were lodged by the petitioners against the respondents 6 to 12 and the said action of the respondents may be declared as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violaive of principles of natural justice and also violative of Atticle 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently the respondents 2 to 5 nay be directecl tc register the complaints dated 1 8.2.2017, 20.02.201 7, 21.2.201 7 and 1 5.7.201 6 respectively lodged by the petitioners and investigate the matter and punish the respondents 6 to 12 in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders . . ."

2. Mr.Mohammed Habeebuddin, learned counsel, representing lVr.T.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, as respondent Nos.2 to 5 failed to take action by registering criminal cases in respect of the written complaints lodged by the petitioners, this petition was filed seeking necessary dlrections

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Governnrent Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submits that the relief soughJ !- l \'lR,/ It .t>. \u l0)9t of 2017 in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the police authorities to register criminal cases-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. 5 I have carefully perused the material placed on record The grievance of the petitioners, in substance, is that despite having written complaints dated 18 2.2017 , 20 02 2017 , 21 .2.2017 and 'l 5 7.2016, the concerned police authorities failed to register criminal cases. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register crimes

6. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakrn Vasu v. Stafe 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 Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances. N.?-R,/ lY.P. No. lU91 of 201 7

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. lvlost notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), 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 directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court B. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary crrcumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent fVlagistrate, and the petitioners are at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should their grievance still subsist.

9. 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/. AHMED ABDULLAH N SISTANT R //TRUE COPY' ECTION OFFICER T SUDHAKAR REDDY Advocate [OP FOR HOME (TG) ,High Court for the State of Telangana. To, u.

1. One CC to SRl. 2. Two CCs to GP louTI

3. Two CD CoPies BM PSK HIGH COURT NTR,J DATED:2510812025 ORDER WP.No.10391 of 2017 { HE SIA t 2 B JAll 2026 * /);:1. . o t\\ ,( ,/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MA!NTANABLE WITHOUT COSTS a .] rt I ..-.<- i" 1t