The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia prayiog 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 order No. 47llW/PSCKP12017 dated 13 04.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unConStitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the crime as per the provlsions attracted in the allegations are cognizable is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and vlolative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-A of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents police to register the crime in the interest of iustice | +:''*@r1*,. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017 (WPMP. NO: 29944 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent police to register the crime basin; on the complaint of the petitioner dated 06 04.2017, pending disposal of the mai I writ petitiotr Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH V PRASAD BABU (NO f PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDD / AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER .-, - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.24199 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief '' ..to issue a Writ. Order or Direction, more paiicularly. one rn the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order No. 47/IWPS- CKP/2017 dated 13.04.2017 passed by the ld respondent, as illegat, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently drcct the ld respondent to register the crime as per the provisions attracted in the allegations are cognizable is illegal, arbitrary and against the prinaples of natural justice and violative of Arlicles 1 4, 1 9, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents police to register the crime in the interest of iustice and lo pass such other order or orders..."

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents, submits that upon due consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2017, the lnspector of Police/respondent No, 3 passed the impugned order dated 13.04.2017. He further submits that, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the non-registration of crime, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). Without exhausting such remedies, invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of l E\llt./ ll:,.1' \o. 2.t t(t(t ,,t l0t i1 the Constitutron of lndia is not maintainable, in view :' the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 4 lhave perused the material placed on record 5 The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is tl- at pursuant to his wrrtten complaint dated 08.04 2017, respondent f\ { 3 passed the impugned order dated 1304.2017 stating that the rllegations in the complaint do not disclose the commrssion of any cogri :able offence, and further noting that the disputes raised are already I rnding before the Hon'ble High Court On that basis, the police declinec urisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences Aggrieved by tl- -. said order, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court r rder Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus directing tr I police authorities to register a crime 6 The legal position governing such matters is w -.ll setfled and no longer res integra ln Sakiri Vasu v. Sfate of U.p. &O't ers (AIR 2OOB SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically hel, that where the grievance pertains to refusal by the police to register r First lnformation Report (FlR) the remedy of approaching the High Courl rnder Article 226 is .ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized thai the Cr p C. (now \[{./ ll .l'. t',0. !l l9l ,,t 201 7 replaced by lhe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficactous statutory framework to deal with such grievances. t1 \ 7 This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies under the Cr P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdrction of the High Court B. ln view of these settled principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting intervention under Arlicle 226, this Court is of the opinion that the 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 persist.

9. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. l + E .\ 7 n./ ll:'.P. \,l ':t I99 oi ?0I . Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall r;.and closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- I .BHAVANI SWAMY ASSr:,rRNwGrgtsAR suTloN oFFrcER One CC to SRI CH V PRASAD BABU, Advocate [OPU( | Two CCs to GP FOR HOlr/E, High Court for the State cf lelangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 PVL BSR HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 I thE.l ,,< o() I 5 'liifl 2q26 'v ?: I:) il * -spATe * ORDER WP.No.24199 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS \0