The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the in action of the respondent no. 2 and 3 in registering the crime pursuant to the complaint dated 18.07.2016 against the respondent 4 and 5 being Violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia apart from being the violative of principles of naturat justice and consequently to direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to register the crime against the respondent No.5 cause investigation and punish the culprits in accordance with law through court of law. l.A. NO:1 OF 2016(wP MP. NO: 30693 OF 2016) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 2 & 3 to register the crime pursuant to the complaint dated

18.07.2016 pending final disposal of the main writ pbtiiion. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 32807 OF 2016 ) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to amend the affidavit file in support of WP.No. 2486112016 by substituting the figure '6'for the figures 2 & 3 and the figure 17 for the figures 18 in the date occurred at para No. 15 & 16 of the affidavit. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 32808 OF 2016) Between: T. Yesumani, Wio T. Anantha Rao, R/o Thogarpalli Village, Kondapur Ma Aged about 41 years, Occ House wife, ndal, Medak District ...PETITIONER AND

5. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad The Superintendent of Police, Medak District at Sangareddy, Medak District The Station House Officer, Kondapur P.S., Kondapur Mandal, Medak District State of Telangana Mr. T. Danial, Sio Abraham, Aged about 51 years, Occ Business, Rl/o Thogarpally Village, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District, State of Telangana Mr. Talari Prasanth alias Praveen, S/o Talari Danial, Aged about 22 years, Occ Nil, Rl/o Thogarpally Village, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District, State of Telangana

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Medak District at Sangareddy ..RESPONDENT/PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.6 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the respondent No.6 as proposed respondent No.6 in the above WP.No. 2486112016 and as well as WPMPs. l.A. I,lO: 4 Of2QI€(WPMP, tlO: 32809 OF 2016) Between:

1. T. Yesumani, W/o T. Anantha Rao, Aged about'41 years, Occ House wife, R/o Thogarpalli Village, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District

2. T. Anantha Rao, Son of Ratnam aged about 62 years, R/o: Thogarpalli Village Kondapur Mandal, Medak District. . PETITIONERYPROPOSED PETITIONER NO.2 AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad ..PETITIONER 2 The Superintendent of Police, Medak District at Sangareddy, Medak District 3. The Station House Officer, Kondapur P.S., Kondapur fi/andal, lvledak District State of Telangana

4. tVr. T. Danial, S/o Abraham, Aged about 51 years, Occ Business, R/o Thogarpally Village, Kondapur [Vlandal, ttledak District, State of Telangana 5. tVlr. Talari Prasanth alias Praveen, S/o Talari Danial, Aged about 22 years, Occ Nil, R/o Thogarpally Village, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District, State of Telangana.

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Medak District at Sangareddy. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner No.2 i.e., Mr. T. Anantha Rao, S/o. Ratnam, aged 62 years, R/o. Thogarpalli Village, Kondapur Mandal, ttledak Dist may be permitted me to implead him as petitioner No.2 in the above WP No. 2486112016 and as well as WPMPs. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, Counsel for the Proposed Respondenft T. LAKSHMTNARAYANA The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FOR HOME THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.24861 OF 2016 OR ER: 'I'iris \X,'rit Pctition is fiied under ;\rticie 226 of Constitution of lndia scckinq the follorving rclief/s:- "...ro issue an appropriate rvrit order t>r dircction tnore particularlt'onc in the nurturc o[ \\'rit of Nlandamus, declaring thc iri action of thc respondent Nr>s. 2 anrl .l in registering rhc crimcr pr,rrsrrant to the complaint datecl 18.07.21)16 against the responclcnt Nos.4 ancl 5 bcing violativc: of Arucle i4 and 21 o[ thc (.onstiruti<-rrt o[ Inclia apart from being thc violative of principles c>i nartrral iustice and c<>nsequcntlv to direct the rcsponcient No. 2 an<l .i t<l rcqister drc crime asainst rhe respondent No.5 cause invcstigation ancl punish thc culprits in accordartcc rvith law through court <lf larv ancl pass other ordcr or orders..."

2. I have hearcl Mr.T.I-ax:tr\narayana, learned counsel for the pctitioner and Mr.R.l,axmikanth Reddy, iearned Assistant Government Pleader flor Hotne appearing for respondent Nos.1 ro3

3. Learned counsel for the pedtioner submits that a representation rvas made before the Superintendent of Police as rvell as the Station House ()fficer, secking initiation of legal and crirninal proceedings against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. However, despite such representation, no acdon has been taken by the 2 authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioner had alscr instituted a civil suit seeking an injunction against respondent No 4, rvhich, horvcver, camc to be dismissed. In view of the continr-red inaction on the part of respondent Nos. '1 to 3 /the police authorities, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by rvay of the present writ petition, praying for issuance of appropriare directions

4. On thc other irand, learned Assistant Government Plcadcr for Hornc contends that, in the absence of specific details in the petitioner's representation, the police authorities were unable to take any action.

5. I have pcrused the materials on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the police have failed to take action on the complaint dated 18.07.2016. It is, however, r,vcll settled that "vhen an aggrieved person complains of inaction on the part of the police in registering a crime, the proper course is to Pursue the remedies expressly provided under the Code of J Crirninal Procedure (Cr.P.C .) /Bharatiya 5u*arik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Unless and until such statutoqr remedies are exhausted, a n.r'ir pedti<>n undcr Articlc 226 of thc Constitution of India is not maintainable, cxccpt in exceptional circumstances

7. Tlris Court, rn Gouind REu S'ami u. State of-'I'elangana.,201.9 SCC Orrl-ine 'fS 3491, by placing reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble Srrpreme Court rn Sakiri L/asu u..ftate ol U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 t I SC 907, heid that invocation of the extraorclir-rary- iurisdicdon under Article 226 'uvithout flrst exhausting the effective alternadve rcmedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS is improper.'I'his legal principle has further been affirmed b). u Three-Jucige Bench of the [{on'ble Supreme Court tn M. Subramaniaru u. .1. lanaki, AIR 2020 s(- 387. B. In view of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances being demonstrated, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. Nevenheless, the rights of rhe petitioner to avail appropriate rernedies under iaw, if the cause of 4 action stili sur-vives, are expressly reserwed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 'l'here shall be no order as to costs t\Iisccllar-re()us Pctitir>ns, pending iI an1r, shall stand closcd. 'SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// \ To,

1. One CC to Sri S. Sridhar, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri T. Lakshminarayana, Advocate[OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies *% T M I I l \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 8/0812025 ORDER WP.No.24861 of 2016 .. '', i'. i't- S I^1 ,'e' 2Z J: ric 2uti L )t * .1 'J- :- -. i.- , - DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS i i i! : :l i I l! ! t, ,: ,l ,: : i t I I I I t I I I i I I I I I I I I ! t I I ! I I I i I I I I I I I I I I t I f I t i : a 11