1. lvlanda Kistamma v. 1. State of Telangana

5. Sri G. Uttam Kumar,, S/o. Not Known, Occ'Business, Aged about 49 Yrs, R/o. Bapughat, \anguor House, Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No- 3 in not registering an FIR against the complaint, dated- 16.01 .2015 and 18.03.2016 of the petitioners and in not taking any action against the Respondent No. 4 and 5 for cheating, attempt of land grabbing, wounded the petitioners, caused for the death of the husband of the first petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, against rule of law, natural justice and violation of article 14, article 21, 300A of Constitution of lndia is arbitrary, illegal, against rule of law, natural justice and violation of article 14, article 21, 300A of Conslitution of lndia !.A.NO:1 OF 2016 (WpMp.NO:I6424 OF 20161 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstbnces stated in the affidavit fil'=d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 &'3 to appear before this Hon'ble Court in person and to produce the ar:tion taken report in the interest of justice. Counsel for ttre Petitioners : SRI D.V.RAO counselfor the Respondent Nos.l to 3 : sRl R.LA,MIKANTH REDD', AGp FOR HOME Counsel for ttre Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : - The Court rtd,Ce the foilowing ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI UIRIT PETITION No.l3L2O OF 2016 ,-) o This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "... Issue a W'rit, Oder or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Ivhndamus declaring the action of the Respondent No 3 in not registering an FIR against the complaint, dated- L6.01.2015 and 18.03.2016 of the petitioners and in not taking any action against the Respondent No. 4 and 5 for cheating, attempt of land grabbing, wounded the petitionen, caused for the death of the husband of the fint petitioner is artitrary illegal against rule of law, natural justice and violation of article 14, article 21,3OOAof Constitution of India is arbitnry, il.S"I, against nrle of law, natural justice and violation of article. 14, article 21, 300A of Constitution of India and pass..... ."

2. Fleard h/Ir.D.V.Rao, learned counsel for the petitionen and Mr.Rlarmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.I. to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitionen submits that, Pursuant to the reprcsenrations dated L6.0L.20L5 and 18.03.2016, the police failed to register a Crime/FIR Consequently, counsel PraF for the issuance of an appropriate direction rc the Superintendent of Police or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case. ,l 2

4. kamed fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home submits that filing c,f writ petition seeking a direction to register a case, is not maintainable as per the settled legal position.

5. I have penrsed the materials on record.

6. The essence of the petitioners gneYance $ *rat the concemed police authorities failed to register a case based on their representations dated 16.01.2015 and 18.03.2016. , the petitionen seek a direction from this Coun under Antcle 226 of the C-o:nstitution of India to compel the police to register a cnme.

7. In tlris regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Coun in Sakii Va:a u. State of Lr.P. dt Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, has laid down that a writ petition rurder Anicle 226's ordtnat:.ly not maintainable when the grievance pertains to the non-registration of an FIR' inasmuch as the C-ode ,:f Criminal Procedure (C"PC) provides an adequate and efficacious remedy. Following this principle, this C-ourt, Goaind Rq;u Sami a. State of Telangana,2019 SCC Online TS 3491, that a petitioners must exhaust the statutory remedies t \ 3 available under the Cr.P.C (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suralsha Sanhita, 2023, vrherever applicable) before invoking the t writ jurisdiction of the F[gh C-oun.

8. This legal position has been further reinforced by a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam u. S. Janaki dv Otbeff, AIR 2020 SC387, wherein it was clarified that the appropriate remedy in such cases is to approach the Magis trate under the procedure contemplated in law, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction.

9. In view of the settled legal position, the relief sought bythe petitioners under Ardcle 226 of the C-onstitution of India cannot be entenained, panicularly in the absence of arLy exceptional or extr:aordinary circumstances demonstrated in the writ petition. The scheme of law provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the competent lVlagistr:ate, which the petitioners are at libercy to pursue in accordance with law, should the cause of action still subsist. , 4

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no I orcter as to costs. Misc,:llaneous Petitions, pending { *r,shall stand closed. S //TRUE COPY// / UNA RAO REGISTRAR OFFICER Hyderirbad. [OUT]

1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOtvlE, High Court for the 2. One CC to SRI D.V.RAO, Advocate TOPUCI 3. Two CD Copies Telan$ana at To SA BS n \l HIGH COURT DATED:1 010912025 ORDER WP.No.13120 ot 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. b la.t I riE s)'4 r.'i \) \ o _) t; * Z 1 lr1 Trnr * I