The High Court · 2025

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Gopalapuram, At, Civil Court Complex, 5. Faheema Begum, Wo Mohammed lsmail Shariff, Occ Household, Rl/o H.no. 11-1-808111115, Chinta Bhavi, Behind Sri Devi Theatre, ChilkaQuda, Secunderabad. 6. Meherunnisa Begum, W/o Mohd Naseer, Occ Househoh, Fi/o H.no. 11-1- 808111115, Chinta Bhavi, Behind Sri Devi Theatre, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. 7. Mohd Naseer, S/o. not known, Occ Business, Rl/o H.no. '11-1-808111115, Chinta Bhavi, Behind Sri Devi Theatre, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. 8. [Vlohammed Kaleem, S/o not known, Occ: Business, Fl/o H.no. 1 1-1- 808/1 1/15, Chinta Bhavi, Behind Sri Devi Theatr€, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. 9. Samdani, S/o not known, Occ Business, Residing Opp to H.no. 1 1-1- 808/'t 1i15, Chinta Bhavi, Behind Sri Devi Theatre, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praytng that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd Respondent in not registering a case against sth to 9th Respondent oonsidenhg I I I : i I I I i / the case of petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of article 14, 'l 5 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondent to register case against the Sth to 9th Respondent on his complaint dated 'l'1-07-2017. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 29932OF 20'l7l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in I the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct 2nd and 3rd respondents to register case against the sth to gth respondents on petitioner complaint dated 1 1-07-2017, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KHAJA MANZOOR ALI (NOT PRESENT) Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 9: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 24189 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Nticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the foltowing relief: "...to r.ssue an appropiate Wit, Order or Direction, more pafticularly, one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus, dectaing the action of the /d and * Respondents in not registeing a case against * to * Respondenfs consideing the case of petitioner, as illegal, ahitrary, violative of Articles 14, 1 5 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently, direct the ld and * Respondenls to regrsl€r case against the dn to gtn Respondents on petitionels complaint dated 11-07-2017 and pass such other order or order..."

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for I i Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 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

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 11.07.2017, the concerned Police authorities failed 2 Nr&/ W.P. No. 2at 89 of 2017 to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a cnme.

6. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakn Vasu v. Stafe of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Gourt categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.') (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efflcacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Ofhers (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the 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. 1 J lw&/ IV.P. No. 24169 of 2Ol7

8. ln light of these settled legal prirrciples, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, 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 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. I \ To //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT-REGISTRAR *r' SEG.TION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI KHAJA MANZOOR ALl, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies PSK/MP @ HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ORDER I WP.No.24189 ot 2017 't HE SIN O 0 7 rt8 2026 .;) 'k ::':;-' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHO STS I .46