The High Court · 2025

Q. M/s MAX INFRA ltd., rep. By its Managing Director Plot No.319 and 320, 4th 9. Mr.M.Jagadeeswar, Ex-Managing Director of, H-M.W.SandS.B, Khairatabad, floor, East Avenue, Ayyappa Society, Madapur, Hyderabad, - 500 081

10. Mr. G. Rameshwar Rao, Retired Chief General, Manager of HMWS and SB, Hyderabad Khairatabad, Hyderabad ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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, to declare the action of the Sth Respondent in not taking action on the Petitioners report dt. 15.04.2017 seeking to take proper and appropriate action against the Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 for misapproation of funds an amount of Rs. Rs.257 Crores in laying Krishna Drinking Water Supply Scheme in Phase-l Rs.49 Crores, in Phase-ll Rs.68 Crores and Rs.149 Crores in Phase-lll totally Rs.257 Crores, and they hidden 52 Water Pipes illegally in the limits of P.S.Gudipalli as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and for other reliefs and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No 5 to forthwith to take action on Petitioners report dt. 09-02- 2O17 and pass appropriate orders l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 23834 OF 2017) 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 pass orders directing the respondent No 5 herein to forthwith to take action on Petitioner's report dt. 15-042017 and pass appropriate orders pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P.V.L.S SRICHAKRAPANI REP SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: SRI G. ANIKETH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6to10:-- The Court made the following: ORDER I i I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 19537 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndra seeking the following relief "...to issue an appropiate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Sth Respondent in not taking action on the Petitioner's repoft dt.15.04.2017 seeking to take proper and appropriate action against the Respondeni Nos. 6 to 10 for misappropriation of funds an amount of Rs 257 Crores in laying Krishna Drinking Water Supply Scheme in Phase-l Rs.49 Crores, in Phase-ll, Rs.6B Crores and Rs. 749 Crores in Phase-lll totally Rs. 257 Crores, and they hidden 52 Water Pipes illegally in the limits of P.S. Gudipalli, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and for other reliefs and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to forthwith to take action on Petitioner's repoi dt. 09.02.2017 and pass appropiate orders, and lo pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. I have heard [Vlr. P.V.L.S. Srichakrapani, learned counsel, representing Mr. Pulla Rao Yellanki, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. '1 to 5 I n

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as respondent No. 5 failed to take action by registering criminal case in respect of the 2 Ar/ttJ IY.P. No. 195)7 of 2017 written complaints lodged by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 6 to 'l 0, this petition has been filed seeking necessary directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the police authorities to register 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 Cou rt

5. I have carefully perused the material placed on record

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaints dated 09.02.2017 and 15.04.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register criminal case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register crimes

7. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Saklri Vasu v. Sfate of U.P. & Ofhers (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 / I I I I I I I .) 3 Ajr&/ W.P. No. t 95)7 of 2017 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 efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances B. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (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.

9. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under A(icle 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 4 ^ITRJ W.P. No. 19537 of 201 7

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, rf any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/-P.C SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME (TG) ,High Court for the State of Telangana 3. Two CD Copies B M/DLW \ \ I I I I I I I I i i I HIGH COURT DATED:0410912025 t '.r { dE SI4 15 \i t l{ JAtlM 7- t FAl ORDER WP.No.I9537 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS h)^# /.