The High Court · 2025

8. Kuruva Srikanth @ Raluta Srikanth, S/o Kuruva Yadaiah @ &tjuta Yadaiah Aged about 26 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No7-66, Patel Road, S6adnagar Tor,rin, Faroocinagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State 509216 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 ...RESPONDENTS the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Reso not considering the Petitioner's Representation dated 08-10-2 any criminal proceedings and not registering an FIR under I against Un-official Respondents No.7 and 8 and their l' threatening with dire consequences to kill the Petitioner anrl submitting written submissions by Petitioner for not providinrl illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 15' i'. Constitution of lndia and also in violation of Principles ol consequently direct the Respondent No.6 to forthwith ccr Representation dated 08-10-2025 by registering an FIR trr Case against Un-official Respondent Nos.7 and 8 and providing Police protection to Petitioner and his family, tl Petitioner to proceed with working G.P.A with Revenue : accordance to law by disposing the Representation de accordance with law. )ndent Nos.2 to 6 in 125 for not initiating and Grabbing Case :nchmen, who are his family inspite of Police protection as and 300-4 of the \atural Justice and sider the Petitioner der Land Grabbing heir henchmen, by rereby to allow the nd Court Works in :ed 08-10-2025, in lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court mzr' be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to forthwith consider the Petitioner Repr esentation dated 08- 10-2025 by registering an FIR under Land Grabbing cas I against Un-official Respondent Nos.7 and 8 and their henchmen, by providing Police protection to petitioner and his family, thereby to allow the Petitioner to lroceed with working G.P.A with Revenue and Court Works in accordance to l, rw by disposing the Representation dated 0B-10-2025, in accordance with law; Pe nding disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOLLU NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: SRI R.LAXMIKAT'I' H REDDY, AGP FOR HOl/ E Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: - W.P.NO: 31745 OF 2025 Between: Palladi Srinivas, S/o Patladi Pullaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1$2, Chattanpally Village, Shadnagar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. T.G.State. ...pETtIoNER AND

1. The State of Telangdna, Rep by its Principal Secretary,.Home Department, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, Secretariat, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, O/o. the DGP, Telangana State Opp. Ravindra Bharathi, Lakdi Ka Pool Khairatabad, Hyderabad -500004 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad O/o. the Commissioner of Police' 2- 48, Sri Shyam Nagar, Telecom Nagar Extension, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500032

4. The Diputy Commissioner of Police, 79BR plus 447, Ranga Reddy Nagar, Shamshabad, Hyderabad, Telangana 501218

5. The Assistani Commissioner of Piolice, Shadnagar Division, Railway Station Road, Shadnagar, Telangana, 50921 6

6. Station House bfficer, Shadnagar Police Station, Shadnagar Division, Railwav Station Road, Shadnagar, Telangana State - 509216 7. Kuruva Yadaiah @ Rajula Yadaiah, S/o Kurava @ Raiqla Bovaiah. Aged about 65 years, O--cc.Rlncuhure, R/o! N9-7-66,.Patel Road, Shadnagar - - ^ iown, faioogn'agar Mindal, Ranga Reddy District' Telanqaqa State 509216' B. Kuruva Srika"nth @ Rajula Srikanth, S/o Kuruva Yqd-a]a! @ Rajula Yadaiah Aged about 26 ye-ars, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.7-66, Patel Road, S6adnagar Tovrin, Faroognagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State 509216' ...RESP.NDENT' Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 inaction of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in not considering the Petitioner's Representation dated 0B-10-2025 for not initiating any criminal proceedings and not registering an FIR under Land Grabbing case against un-official Respondents No.7 and 8 and their henchmen. who are threatening with dire consequelrces to kill the Petitioner and his family. inspite of submitting written submissions by Petitioner for not providing Police protection as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and also in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.6 to forthwith consider the Petitioner Representation dated 08-10-2025 by registering an FIR under Land Grabbing Case against Un-official Respondent Nos.7 and B and their henchmen' by providing Police protection to Petitioner and his family, thereby to allow the I I I -l i1 petitioner to proceed to wo rk with working G.P.A Holder with llevenue and court works in accordance to law by disposing the Representation 'l rted 0811012025' in accordance with law. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 '- PetitionunderSectionlslCPcprayingthatinthecir<;tmstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may re plebsed to direct the Respondent No.6 to forthwith consider the Petitioner Repr€ sentation dated 08- 10-2025 by registering an FIR under Land Grabbing Cas: against Un-official Respondent Nos.7 and 8 and their henchmen, by providing )olice protection to petitioner and his family, thereby to allow the Petitioner to p cceed to work with working G.P.A Holder with Revenue and court works in ac;ordance to law by disposing the Representation dated o9-1o-2o25, in accordanc : with law. Pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOLLU NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: SRI R.LAXMIKAN'I { REDDY' AGP FOR HONII : Counsel for the Respondent Nos-7 & 8: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION Nos.31744 and 31745 ot 2025 COMMON ORDER: These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a declaration that the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 08.1O.2025, whereby the petitioner requested initiation of criminal proceedings and registration of an FIR under a Land Grabbing case against the unofficial respondents (Nos.7 and 8) and their associates, who are allegedly threatening the petitioner and his family with dire consequences, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 15,21, and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, as well as the principles of natural justice. The petitioners also seeks a consequential direction to respondent No.6 to forthwith consider his representation dated 08.10.2025, register an FIR against the unofficial respondents and their henchmen, and provide police protection to him and his family, so as to enable him to discharge his functions under the General Power of Attorney in connection with revenue and court+elated work in accordance with

2. Since the parties and issues involved in both these petitions are identical and intertwined, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2

3. Heard Mr. Bollu Nagaraju, learned counsel f:' the petitioner, and Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistir tt Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents Nos.'1 o 6.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submi's that despite submission of a written complaint dated 08.10.202t, the respondent police failed to register a crime or take any action, tllegedly due to the undue influence exerted by the then sitting Vember of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). Accordingly, the learn: J counsel prays for issuance of a direction to the Superintendent rf Police or the competent officer to ensure registration of the case and to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner and his amily.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fo' Home submits that the relief sought, namely, a direction to comg el the police to register an FIR is not maintainable under Arli, :le 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled lr: yal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. lt is su[ mitted that the petitioner has adequate statutory remedies unde,t the Cr.P.C. to address any inaction by the police, and that ll e extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for such )urposes.

6. I have perused the material on record anrl considered the submissions of learned counsel 3

7. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite his written complaint dated 08.10.2025 disclosing commission of cognizable offences, the police authorities failed to register a case Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ direction to the respondent police to register a cflme.

8. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. ln Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe of U.P. & Others [(2008) 2 SCC 409], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a person's grievance pertains to the failure or refusal of the police to register an FlR, the proper remedy lies within the statutory scheme of the Cr.P.C., and not under Article 226. The Court observed that under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police if the officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to register the complaint. Further, if no action is taken even thereafter, the complainant has a right to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the police to investigate the case

9. This principle has been reiterated in several subsequent decisions, including Aleque Padamsee v. Union of lndia (2007) 6 SCC 171], and more authoritatively in M. Subramaniam v. S. ,lanaki I I I I l ,i I I I I I I I i I I i i I t i t 4 & Others [(2020) 16 SCC 728], wherein a threrr -Judge Bench clarified that an aggrieved party must exhaus: the remedies available under Sections 154(3), 156(3), or 200 Cr.[, 3., as the case may be. The Court cautioned that the High Courls should refrain from exercising their writ jurisdiction to compel regis:ration of FlRs, except in exceptional or extraordinary circumstanc 3s, such as a clear abuse of power, manifest illegality, or violatior rf fundamental rights.

10. The underlying rationale is that the Cr.P.O constitutes a complete code providing an efficacious and hierarchi :al mechanism to address such grievances. The writ jurisdiction of :l is Court under Article 226 is discretionary and extraordinary rnd it cannot ordinarily be invoked to supplant or bypass the stat rtory remedies expressly provided by law

11. ln light of these authoritative pronouncemerts and in the absence of any demonstrated exceptional ol extraordinary circumstance in the present case warranting devi rtion from the settled position of law, this Court is not inclined to ert :rtain the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. -he petitioners -- have adequate and efficacious remedies availat le under the I ) 5 Cr.P.C. before the competent Magistrate, which they are at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should their grievance still subsist.

12. Accordingly, with the above liberty, these Writ Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To

1. One CC to SRI BOLLU NAGARAJU, Advocate IQPUCI - - i: il; 66."t 3. Two CD CoPies -O'p-r-On nOi,iE, H,Sr, iourt for.thsstate of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI PSK. TKS cdl- HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 I t COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.31744 AND 31745 ot 2025 (') ,,..,, R THE S r4 cI t i \

2.. 28 | 20 26 ,\' t. rr4Tcl DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS Af I ,I ,\