High Court · 2025

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders by directing the 5th respondent to register criminal case for the petitioner complaint dated 13-05-2016 against 7th respondent and ten others of the committee IVasjid-e-Toop Khana, Goshamahal, Hyderabad, for forged the signatures and fabricated and manipulated the representation dated 31-01 -2012 by impersonating the petitioner and entire locality Muslims and obtained order No.44lHydlcl2006lz-1, dated 13-10-2012, til pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.HARISH KUMAR GOUNSEI fOT thE RESPONdENTS NO.1TO5 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents NO.6&7 : The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.30147 OF 2016 ORDER: This \7rit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relieflsr *... [o issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more panicularly one in the nature of Writ of ]vlandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents No.2 to 6 in considering the petitioner complaint dated 18-05-2016 agairut 7,h respondenr and ten othen of the committee lGsjide-Toop Khana, Goshamahal, Hyderabad, for forged the signatures and fabricated and manipulated the representation dated 3L-01-20t2 by impersonating the petitioner and entire localiry Muslims and obtained order No.aalH1d / A 2006 / Z- 1, dated l3-10-20t1 which are illegal, highhanded, arbitrary trnconstitutional, and agairut t}e principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 5,h respondenr to register criminal case for the petitioner complaint dated L8-05-2076 against 7,h respondent and ten others of the committee lGsjid-e-Toop Khana Goshamahal, Hyderabad, for forged the signatures and fabricated and manipulated the representation dated 31-01-2012 by impenonating the petitioner and entire localiry Muslims and obtained order No.aalHyC/ CJ 2006 / Z- I, dated t3 - t0-20 12."

2. I have heard N{r.K.Harish Kumar, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and A&.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, learned fusistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l. to 5

3. Learned coursel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submined representations before the Station House Officer z .f and other competent authorities, seeking initiation of legal and criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 2 to 7. However, despite such representations, no action has been taken by the authorities. It is funher contended that, owing to the continued inaction on the pat of. respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who are police officials, the present writ petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate or,Cen.

4. On the other hand, the leamed fusistant Govemmenr Pleader for Home submits that, in the absence of specilic details and paniculan the representations, the concerned police authorities found no basis to initiate action and, therefore, no steps have been taken.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the police authorities have failed to take any action pursuant to his complaint dated

18.05.2016. It is by now well seftled that where a petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the police in registering a crime or g!i"g upon a complaint, the proper course available is to invoke J the statutory remedies specifically provided under the C-ode of Giminal Procedure, L973 (G.P.C) / Bhatatig Nagrik Suralsha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Unless such alternative remedies are fint exhausted, the invocation of the extraor'dinary jurisdiction of this Coun under Anicle 226 of the C-onstitution of India is not maintainable, s ave in exceptional circumstances.

7. This C-ourt, tn Gorind REu Sami u. State of Telangana,2019 SCC Online TS 3491, while relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme C-oun n Sakiri Vasu u. State of U.P. arud Otberr, AIR 2008 SC 907, has categorically held that the extr:aordinary remedy under Anicle 226 carurrot be sought without fint availing the efficacious alternative remedies available under the Cr.P.C/BNSS. This legal position has further been reaffirmed and fonified by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme C-ourt n M. Subramanian a. J, Janaki, AIR 2020 SC 387.

8. In light of the setded legal position, and in the absence of any exceptlonal or extraordrnary c[cunstances waffantmg Oevratlon, ' t l' . r the relief sought by the petitioner is not maintainable. F{owever, i I 4 while dismissing the writ petition, this C-ourt makes it clear that the petitioner shall be at liberq, to avail such remedies as may be available to him in law, if his cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as ro cosrs. Miscellaneous Peritions, pending ,f *y,shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT EEGISTRAR sEckNoFFtcER To,

1. One CC to SRI K.HARISH KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies. BSK TKS w ,/ HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 8lOBl2025 ORDER WP.No.30147 of 2016 !r& !.1 I;. ,er ( lrmIilr t S'> AT c * DISMTSSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G 4t"t) k,