Mohd Saddk v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that even after receiving the complaint filed by the petitioner in written duly attested by two eye witnesses on 19-02-2017 at '13-00 hrs neither registered nor issued FIR whereas the complaint filed by the 4th Respondent at 17-00 hrs through the local leaders registered and issued FIR No. 4912017 dated 19-02- 2017 at 17-00 hrs, is arbitrary, illegal, amounts to discriminative and violation of principles of natural justice and against Article, 14, 15 and 2'l of the Constitution of India directing to the 3rd respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner as FIR against the respondents 4 and 5, subsequently investigating the matter as per law in force a r I pass such order or orders, as this Honbre cou,- may deem fit and proper in th(r )ircumstances of the case in the interest of justice. .A. NO: 1 oF 2017(WPM P. NO: 16156 0F 2017 ) Petition under Section 1sl cpc praying that in the cir( rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo', of the petition, the High Court m;7 be pleased issued directions to the 3rd Respondent to register the complainr as FIR filed by the petitioner on 19-02-2017 qt 13-00 hrs forowing the Articre .1 1, 15 and 21 0f the constitution of lndia and investigate the matter. Counset_for the petitioner : SRI MOHD GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents No.ito3 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDt y,AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5 : The Court made the following: ORDER -- l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 13001 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...1o lssue any wit, order or direction more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that even after receiving the complaint filed by the petitioner in wiften duly aftested by two eye uzitnesses on 19-02-2017 at 13-00 hrs. neither registered nor issued FIR whereas the comptaint filed by the 4th Respondent at 17-00 hrs. through the local leaders registered and issued FIR No. 49/2017 dated 19-02-2017 at 17-00 hrs., as arbitrary, illegal, amounts to discriminative and violation of pinciples of natural justice and against Adictes 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia directing to the ld respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner as FIR against the respondents 4 and 5, subsequently investigating the matter as per law in force and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Courl may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 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 position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, r!-lI\ -,n{t 2 NIR,,I lt'/.P. No. I )001 o12017

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on r€( ord

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is hat despite having written complaint dated 19.02.2017, the concerned pol,( e authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the pet tioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of he Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police ar thorities to register a cnme

6. The legal position governing matters of this nalur: is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Saklri Vasu v. Sfafe of U.P ,tr Others (AlR 200S SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically trr ld that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to registe' e First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High Court L nder Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") (now Bharatiya Nagarik .:uraksha Sanhita, 2023) prouides an adequate and efficacious statutory frar rework to address such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in s lbsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v I Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'll e Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved pa1/ is to avail the 3 Nlill"r/ LY.P. No. t )001 of 2017 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. 8 ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226,lhe relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his 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/-A.JAY TANT REGI ASREE STRAR ASS /,TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRI MOHD GHOUSEUDDIN' Advocate I Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana touTl J Two CD CoPies. BSK Nr HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 ( o:) r ). SF 1- '2t]26 z c') -): D,: q ,ArCt {11-q ,( ORDER WP.No.13001 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 |.( rAI*