K. Laksmaiah Goud S/o Late Shankaraiah v. The State of Telangana

The Director General of Police, State of Telangana at, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Poliee Commissionerate, Rangareddy District. The tnspector of Police Vanasthalipuram Police Station,, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District. Sri Muralidhar lnspector of Police Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Cyberabad, RangareddY District. ' Govind Das S/o not known to the petitioner R/o 4-6-465,, lsamiya Bazar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constrtution 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 the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in not taking action against the respondents 4 to 6 pursuant to representation of the petitioner dated 13/03/2017 as illegal, arbitrary and further declare that the respondents 1 to 3 shall take all steps to protect the life and liberty and property of the petitioner and his family members and also take action against tlt, respondents 4 to 6 forthwith. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017 PMP. NO: 14434 F 2017 o Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c;i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High C I rrt may be pleased to direct the respondents '1 to 3 to give protection to the pr: itioner and his family members from the hands of the respondents 4 to 6 durin: pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.ASHOK REDDY(not present) Counsel for the Respondents No.1to5 : SRt R.LAXMIKANTH Rt: )DY,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER 1 f-,-) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRTT PETITIO No.74ffie oF2 7 DE This vrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of constitution of India seeking the following rehef/s:- "... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the 'fuspondents nature of Vrit of Mandamus declaring the acdln of the 1 to 3 in not taking action_agairut the respondents 4 to 6 pursuant to representation of the petitione r dated BlO3/2012 as illegal, artitrary and funher declare that rhe respondents 1 to 3 shall t L." jl ,t p. t6 protect the life and liberry and properry of the petitione, -j hi, famil_ y members and also take action agairxt the respondena 4 to 5 fonhwith...... ."

2. None appean on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1to5. 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the represenration dated 13.03.2017, the police failed to register a Crime/FIR Corsequently, counsel prays for the issuance of an appropriate direction to the Superintendent of police or the officer c6ncemed to ensure registration of the case. ,. 2 \ -- \ +!*f \' \^m\ \

5. kamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home submits that filing of writ petition'seeking a direction to I 3gister a case, $ not maintainable as per the settled legal position.

6. I have pensed the materials on record.

7. The essence of the petitioner's gdeva: ;e ls that the concemed police authorities failed to register a (r se based on his representarion dated 13.03.2017 . consequently, thr petitioner seels a direction from this Court under Article 226 of tlr : Constitution of India to compel the police to register a cr-ime.

8. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme C-ourr m Sakii Vasu u S tdte 0f U .P. dt Others, AIR 2008 SC 907 , has laid Jown that a writ petition r.rnder Article 226 ts ordinarily not main: jnable when the grievance pertains to the non-registration of an I IR, inasmuch as the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provider; an adequate and efficacious remedy. Following this principle, this C-ourt, 1rr Gouind Ralu Sami u. State of Telangana,2O19 SCC )nline TS 3491, .reiterated that a petitioner mrut exhaust the st Ltutory remedies 3 available under the cr.P.c (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suralsha Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Flgh Court.

9. This legal position has been funher reinforced by a three-judge Bench of the F{on'ble Supreme Court M. Subrananian u. S. Janaki dt Others, AIR 2020 SC 382, wherein it was clarified that the appropriate remedy in such cases is to approach the Magistrate under the procedure contemplated in law, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction.

10. In view of the setrled legal position, the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the C.onstitution of India cannot be entertained, particularly in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances demonstrated in the writ petition. The scheme of law provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, shouid the cause of action still subsist. , I 4 --\ I Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed' Tht::e shall be no

11. or,Cer as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall st'r rd ciosed' //TRUE COPY// SiI )/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI REGISTRAR ASSrr TNT \s TION OFFICER To, 1 2 a One CC to SRI K.ASHOK REDDY, Advocate. IOPUC] l Two CCs to GP FOR HOil/E, High Court for the State of elangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies. BSK TKS ftne.. 7 HIGH COURT DATED:0410912025 I t v I .: t E SIil 1H i- co, \-\o (.) l7 Jln 2lJ2[ v c).\ * i.spATCK{ ORDER WP.No.11599 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?^c.. p-\v),{