The legal position on this issue is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe ot U.P. Others

Sri Guda Rajakumar Reddy, S/o.G.Raghava Reddy Hindu, aged 45 Years Occ Private Service Rl/o.D.No.3-13-33, [t/adhuranagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad' Telangana ...RES'.NDENTS 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 a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not responding to the complaint dt.09-09-2017 and 19- 09-2017 registering the same as FIR and investigate into the averments of the said complaint, though the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and also against the Honble Apex Court judgment and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to take appropriate action in accc rdance with law, on the basis of petitioner complaint dt.09-09-2}17 duly registerirrg as FlR. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 P. NO:40535 OF 2017) Petitior 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 respondents 2 to 5 to take appropriate action on the basis of the complaint dt.C9-09-2017 and 19-09-2017 in accordance with law duly registering the same as F'lR pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.CHIDAMBARAM 0.ror pRESENT) Counsel for tlre Respondent No.1 to 5: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT N No.3 2582 ot 2017 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...fo issue a writ, order or direction more particutarly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not responding to the complaint dt.09.09.2017 and 19.09.2017 registering the same as FIR and investigate into the averments of the sald complaint, though the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and also against the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to take appropriate action in accordance with law, on. the basis of complaint dt.09.09.2017 duly registering as FIR and pass...." None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

3. appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

4. ' The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite having submitted a written complaints dated Og.Og.2O17 and

19.09.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to registerafiase. 2 Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court under Arti:le 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position on this issue is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe ot U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court cater;orically held that where the grievance relates to refusal by the police :o register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. lnstead, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious mechanism to address such grievances. The Court emphasized that recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the or.P.c. before seeking intervention under Article 226. B. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in later decisions. Most notably, in M. subramaniam v. s. Janaki & others (AlR 2020 sc 387), a thr,-'e-Judge Bench of the Hon'bre supreme court reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in the event of potice inaction, is to avail remedies provided under the cr.p.c., including filing an aplrlication under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ior a direction to the police to register an FlR, or initiating proceedings under Section 200 cr.P.c. by way of a private complaint. The court clarified that lypassing these remedies and directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of \ :: : j:1, 3 the High Court is impermissible, save in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

9. ln light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any such exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Court finds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme under the Cr.P.C. provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the'petitioner is at liberty to pursue those remedies in accordance with law should his grievance still persist. However, reserving the right of the petitioner to file appropriate petition for revival of the present writ petition, if cause still survives, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. To, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANTFEGISTRAR (q_ SECTdN OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI K.CHIDAIMBARAM, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies : BSR BS gt\ t HIGH CoURT DATED: 0711012025 c) t * rHE S t 1 6 r[8 ztl2fi I ORDER WP.No.32582 of 2011 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, WITHOU]'COSTS I .*(.* S- {p\t