The High Court · 2025

Petition under Anicle 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 ...RESPONDENTS Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 il not registering F.l.R against respondents 5 to I on petitioner's report dt 17.01 .ZO24 as being illegal, arbitrary and vioiative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and against the provisions of section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure,, 1973 and new act provisions of section 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha S.rnhita, 2023 and also against the Honourable Supreme court Judgment in Lalitha l(umari Vs Govt of U.p and consequently direct the respondents 2 lo 4 to regist€)r F l.R against the respondents 5 to 8 forthwith. lA NO: I OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying lhat in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim directions directing the 4th respondent to regis e- F.l R against the respondents 5 to 8 forthwith pending disposal of the above v,rit petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDy, ASST. GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.s to 8: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER ',,,ry:Fw ,,1 ]a' /t' 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.28972 OF 2025 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed under A(icle 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following rel iefls:- " . . .lo irrr" n writ ordar or direction more particultrly one in the rutture ofMundamus declaring the action of rhe respondent Nos.l b 4 in not rcgistering P'.LR against respondent Nos.5 to I on petlt@ners reporr iated l7 0].2024 as being illegul, arbitrary and iolatire of Articles l1 ond 2l of ConstitutiL)n of Indiu und egainsl lhc proviyons ofsection 154 ofCode o/Crntinal I'rocedure, 1973 and new Act provisions of section 173 of Bharattya Nagurik Suraksha Sonhito. )021 und also against the Honouruble Supreme uun Judghent in L l ha Kunu'i L/s Got of U.? antl consequently direct the tcspondent ,\o5 2 to I to rL'gi\tet l: I Il ugainst the respondent Nos.s to I rt) hwith. . ."

2. I have heard Mr. B.Balaji, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4

3. Leamed counsel lor the petitioners sublnits that despite the report dated

17.01.2024, the respondent police have failed to register a crirne and conduct an investigation, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhiro,202,3 (.'BNSS") and the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. Consequently, counsel prays for issuance ofan appropriate direction to the competent authority to ensure registration of the case 2

4. Leamed Assistant Government Pleader for H,trne, on written instructions, submits that the police had duly considerr.d the petitioner's representation and. upon preliminary cnquiry, lound titat thc allegations pertained to sharing of property, which is purely civiI in nrrt.rre. ,{ccordingly, the petitioner was atlvised, and the representatioli was clost,d_ It is therefore contcndcd that the allegation of police inaction is unfourrced, and the writ petition is liable to be disrnissed.

5. I have carcfully considered the submissions advanc,rc. and perusecl the rnaterial available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the concerned police authorities lailed to register a crime based on their representation <lated 1j.01.2024. However, as reported by the leamed Assistant Govemmcnl l,leader for llorne. the respondent policer authorities, upon receipt of the petitio,er's rcpresentation. conducted an enquirl,and closed the same, treating the mafirr as civil in nature.

7. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of the case. she is at liberty to avail herself of the appropriate and efficacious rerneclies available under law.

8. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the settled ;-osition of law. Thc Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of IJ.P. & Cthers, AIR 2008 SC 907, categorically held that a writ petition under Article 22,5 is ordinarily not r..? ',-:rwv 3 maintainable where the grievance pertains to non-registration of an FIR, as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Qtow the Bharatiya Nogarik Suraksha i Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) provides adequate and elficacious I t remedies. The Court clarified that an aggricved person must flrst exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the Codc rather than directly invokng the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Cou11.

9. This legal position was further reaffinned bv a three-Judge Bench ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniant v. S. .lttnaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387, wherein it was held that in such circumstances, the proper course of action for the aggrieved party is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by following the procedure prescribed in law, and not to drrectly invoke writ jurisdiction.

10. In view of the aforesaid binding precedents and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances pleaded or established in the writ petition, it is evident that the relief sought by the petitioners under Art;tclc 226 of the Constitution cannot be granted. However as the statutory framework provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the cornpetent Magistrate, which the petitioners are at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should the cause of action still subsist. 1 I . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not rnaintainable. There sha[[ be no order as to costs. 4 a) Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand clos,:d //TRUE COPY// Sd/,P.PONNA KRISHNA AS:;ISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRI B. BALAJI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies BN PMK v HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 ORDER WP.No.28972 of 2025 :=-\: r_i r-Al 1!i iiil I:l[ -? .? l,'l o( ) ':,) '.).' -i- ':\.\:. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS i V