Baireddy Seetha Rama Reddy S/o. Aga Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

2. The Director General of Police for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy lnspector General of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal. 4. The Surperintendent of Police, Khammam District, Khammam- 5. The Dy. Superitendent of Police, Khammam Town, Khammam- 6. The SHO, P.S. Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Town & District. 7. Sridhar, Circle lnspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli, Police Station, Khammam Town & District.

8. Prasad, Sr.rb-lnspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli Police, Station, Khammam Town and District.

9. Janoa tVlallikariuna Rao. S/o. Koteswar Rao, R/o. Flat No., 303, 4th Floor, CL TowYers, 14th Sireet, Kaviraj Nagar, Opp: District Court, Khammam.

10.Janoa Koteswar Rao. S/o. Not known, R/o. FIat No. 303, 4th Floor, CL Tow"ers, 14th Street, Kaviraj Nagar, Opp: District Court, Khammam. ll.Yellanki Ram Mohan Rao, S/o. Not known, Fl/o. Flat No.,405, sth Floor, CL Towers, 14 Street, Kaviraj Nagar, Opp District Court, Khammam' ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Wr:it of fVlandamus, questioning the action of the 2nd Respondent in not taking action on the Petitioner's representation dt. 16-9-2015, for taking proper and appropriate lawful action against the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 for interfering in Civil matter i.e. in Petitioners peaceful enjoyment of his rental premises in Flat No. 303, 4th Floor, cL Towers, Kaviraj Nagar, Khammam Town and District, and in his Fundamental Right to life and liberty and kept him in wrongful confinement in the Police Station of P.S. Khanapurarn Haveli as being illegal', arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 21, 22 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently this Hon'ble Court direct the 2nd Respondent to take action on Petitioner's Representation dt. 16-09-2016. :1OF 201 O: 24339 OF 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 Respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,0001- for violation of the Petitioner's Fundamental Right pending disposal df tn" above writ petition,. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: oF 2016) 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 directthe 2nd Respondentto take action on the Petitioner's Representation dt. 16- 09-2016 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VINOD KUMAR KETHEpALLy counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6: sRl R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 11: -- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI T I ION No.1 9820 2 6 o E This writ pedtion is filed under Anicle 226 o{ constitution of India seeking the following reliefr an.appropriate Wrir, Order or Direction, more _-_!" ,"s,ue panrcularly one in the nature of Writ of Nhndamus, ouestionins the action of the 2d Respondent i" ;;,;rk";;;,H;;: Pedrioner's representatior darcd l6.O9.2Of S, i"",,rfA"" r."*, and appropnare lawful action againsr Respondent Noi4 ro.l1 for interfering in Gvil .n"n.i i..., ir, 'p.tirion .t peaceful enjoyment of his rental premises i" nU, NoiC;; F6;;;A Towers,,Kaviraj, Nig.*, khr-*r* fo*" rna Oirm.i_a io 'hirn hrs tundamental righr t9 lif-e wrongful confinement_in the police Station'of p.S. Kli*rp;; T"..li. T being illegal, artitrary, unconstiturio"A *a "dti.; of Articles 21, 22 and,300_A of Constirution of India anJ TT:1T",ty this Honble Court direct ,t. ZJn rp."a.rJrT ralse actron on myRepresentation dated 16.09.2Ol5 *d pr.r... " ..and libeny and L.p,

2. I have heand Mr. Vinod Kumar Kethepally, leamed counsel for petitioner as well as Nlr.Rlaxmitranth Reddy, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Ftrcme appearing for respondent Nos.l to 6.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that, owing to the acts dlegedly commined by respondent Nos. 4 to g, the petitioner submitted a represenration dated 16.09.2015. fu the said l representation was neither considered nor acted upon by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking app ropriate directions.

4. In response, the leamed fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home contends that the substance of the Petitioner's PraFr amounrs to a request for registration of a criminal case pursuant to his representation dated t6-Og.2}l5.It is, however, a well-semled principle of law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the C-onstitution of India cannot be maintained solely for the PurPose of seeking a direction to register a crime, without exhausting effective and adequate statutory remedies available under law' 5 I have pensed the materials on record.

6. The petitioner's grievance is that the concemed police authorities failed to ogirt..'" case pursuant to his representation darcd 16.09.2015. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer ret integra.ln Sakii l/atu a. Sun of U.P. and Others (AIR 2008 SC 9OZ), the Ftron'ble Supreme C-ourt categorically held that where J the police fail to regibrer a complaint, the complainant has adequate remedies under the code of Giminal Procedure,lgT3 (G.p.C). 7 In such situation, the proper couse is to fint approach the superintendent of Police under section 154(3) cr.P.c, and thereafter, if necessa{F, ro move the jurisdicdonal Magistrate under Section 156(3) G.P.C Similar procedural safeguards have now been incolporated in the Bharatita l\agarik Suraksha Sanhitha (for short, "BNSS").

8. This legal position has been consistently reaffirme d. rn M. subrarnaniam u. s. Janaki (AIR 2020 SC 387), the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again clarified that a. writ petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of India, filed solely for the prupose of seeking registration of an FI& is not maintainable in view of the efficaciots statutory remedies available. Following the same principle, this C-ourt, tn Gouind REu sami u. state of relangano Qotl SCC online TS 3490, held that such writ petitions are not maintainable without fint exhausting the alternative remedies pro'ided under law. I I 4 9 In light of these senled principles, the present petition is held to be not maintairnble. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competent court, in accordance with law.

10. \Xrrth this observation, this petition is dismissed' There shall be no or,Cer as to costs. \ Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' sD/- B.REKHA RANI / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'O',,. ON" CC tO SRI VINOD KUMAR KETHEPALLY' AdVOCAIE [OPUC] ? Two CCs to GP for Home' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad lOUTl

3. Two CD CoPies MP TKS fr^c." HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 aS 07 JAi'l tJlb t * v '* =i WP.No.19820 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS S G\^u t+l,A>{