Nunavath Soti v. 1. 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of \Vrit of lvlandamus, to declare the action of the Respondent Nos.2 herein not registering the case against the Respondents No. 3 to B of the written representation dated 16-06-2016, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to register the case against the respondents No.3 to 8. l.A.NO:1 OF 2(|16 (WPMP.NO:27988 OF 2016) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders directing the Respondent No.2 herein to consider and pass appropriate order or orders on the representation dt.16.06.2616, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.RAJESWAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8 : SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR The Court macle the following ORDER I . THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.22764 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the follorving relief/s:- "...to is.sue un uppropritrte l4rit Order or Direction more parricularlv one in the rutture o.f lf/rit o/'Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 herein not registering the case against the Respondents Nos.-l to 8 of the written representation dated 16.06.2016 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the Rcspondent No.2 to register the case against respontlents Nos.3 to I and to grant such othcr relicf'or relie.fs as thi.s Hon'ble Court deemsfit errul proper in thc circuntstences of'the case. . ."

2. I have heard Mr. J. Rajeswar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader for Horne appearing for respondent Nos. I and}

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 failed to register the crime basing on the police report dated 16.06.2016 Consequently, learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the Station House Officer-respondent No.2 to ensure registration of the case.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Horne submits that it is not settled that the petitioner cannot invoke Section 226 of Constitution of India for direction for registration of crime except availing the alternative remedies available under law. I I have perused the rnaterials on record. ) -1 'l 1l I I j i r i I 2

6. f'he essence of the petitioner's grievance is that respondent No.5 failed to register a case based on the police report dated 16.16.2016. Consequently, the petitiont:r seeks a direction frorn tliis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia to conrpel the police to register a crirne l. lrr this regard, the Hon'trle Suprerne Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State o/'U.P & Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, has laid down that a writ petition under Article 226 is ,rrdinarili not maintainalrle when the grievance pertains to the non- registration of an FIR. inasrnuch as the Code of Crirninal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) provides an adccluate and efficacious reuredy. Following this principle, this Court, ir Govind Raju Soni v. State of Telangana,20l9 SCC Online TS 3491, reiterateC that a petitioner rnust exhaust the statutory rernedies available under the Cr.P.C. (nor,v replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Courl.

8. This legal position has been further reinforced by a three-judge Bench of tlre Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Sttbramantam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387, rvherein it was clarified that the appropriate rernedy in such cases is to approach the Magistrate under the procedure conternplated in law, rather than dire,ctly invoking the writ jurisdiction

9. [rr vier,v of the settled legal position, the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be enterlained, particularly in the at,sence of any exceptional or extraordinary circurnstances dernonstrated J in the writ petition. The scheme of law provides adequate and effrcacious remedies before the cornpetent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, shoulcl the cause of action still subsist.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disrnissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ASS*?IfiYJS?SffiI, To //TRUE COPYII 6 HotuE, High court for the state of retansana at

1. Two ccs to Gp FoR unnrE Lri^L ^ . Ild.llord fo!1ffR ,.g;;,ff LSSfr l*tr+i,'ffi ff il,,ftt,fr,l.di3l""ateropUcl sEcrloN oFFlcER / SA B$*4 / / S .) ,' t: 1 6 rr:B 2026 i... h.L \Q^o.,..* 'ft .-, .<-, ) HIGH CCIURT DATED:11410812025 ORDER WP.No.22764 of 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ! :i.t I i I I @"P 9K