The High Court · 2025

3. The Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy District, Kamareddy 4. Mr. Sardar Singh, Circle lnspector of Police, Bichkunda Police Station, Bichkunda Kamareddy District.

5. Mr. Abbulu, Police Constable, Bichkunda Police Station, Bichkunda, Kamareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 inaction of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in taking action against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who beat the petitioner and his sons indiscriminately by misusing their officiai power when the petitioner asked to pay the amount towards the sweets ordered by the 4th respondent inspite of the written complaint dt. 17-1-2017 and implicating the petitioner and his sons in false case in Cr.No. 912017 , as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to forthwith take appropriate action against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and other police constables in accordance with Law, pursuant to the complaint dt. 17-1-2017. / l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: oF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to take immediate action against the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein pursuant to the complaint dt. 171-2017, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.BHUSHAN REDDY (Nor PRESENT) counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 To 3: sRt M.sRlNlvAS, AGp FoR HOME Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: sRt JAYSURYA VISHNUVARDHAN The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETIT N No.3168 7oF 2017 ORDER: ThisWritPetitionisfiledunderArticle226ofConstitutionoflndia seeking the following relief: 'Mandamus, '...1o issue an apptopiate Wtit, Oder or Dircction' one in declaring the inaction of the ;;ii* of Writ of 'iiponOent Nos- 2 and 3 in taking action.. against tlrc 'AdpnAent Nos. 4 and 5 wlo beat the ptitioner and his {'(,ni indiscriminatety by misusing their official power when iii imau, a"x"d to-pay the amount towards lhe sn/eets 'reipondent inspite. of ..the witten oAiinA oy the 4th i-iiant dated 17.01.2017 and implicating tltre petitioner and'his ly.,ns in false case in Cr'No'9t2017' as being illegal' ;;,fidi, uniust and un@nstitutional and consequently iirect tirc Reipondent Nos ' 2 and 3 herein to fotthwith take iwipriate abtion against the Respondent Nos' 4 and 5 iii bn", police instables in accodance with Law' iuiuant to the complaint dated 17'01'2017' and to grant such other rclief . . .' 2. None for the Petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.M.Srinivas, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home appeadng for respondents No'1 to 3'

4.1. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home submits that the allegations made by the petitioner that, respondents Nos' 4 and 5 assaulted him.and misused their official position, are vague, devoid of particulars, and wholly unfounded' lt is further contended that the grievance of the petitioner regarding the alleged non-registration of a crime based on his report dated 17.01'2017 is misconceived' The petitioner' without approaching the competent authorities as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P C') for appropriate relief' has directly 2 invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Such a @urse of action, without first exhausting the altemative statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C., renders this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia not maintainable, as per the settled position of law.

4.2. He further submits that on the relevant date, i.e., 15.0.1.2017, the police authorities, acting upon a requisition from the Gram panchayat authorities, were providing lawful protection to facilitate the removal of illegal encroachments. During this operation, when the petitioner's shop was being cleared, the petitioner and his sons allegedly obstructed the prooess and created a public nuisance. lt is also alleged that they assaulted the police constables on duty, leading to registration of Crime No. 129 of 2017 against them. The present petition, it is contended, has been filed only to circumvent the said criminal proceedings, without any prior intimation to the respondentVpolice. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Leamed munsel appearing for respondents Nos.4 and 5 further submits that, pursuant to the incident dated 15.01 .2017, a case was registered against the petitioner, his father, and his brother. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were present at the s@ne of occurrence pursuant to the requisition issued by the Gram Panchayat authorities. Hence, the allegations made by the petitioner and his sons that respondents Nos. 4 .and 5 misused their power or falsely implicated them are baseless agd -. J devoid of substance. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. I have perused the material available on record

7. The petitioner's grievance is that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 physically assaulted him, misused their official powers, and falsely implicated him in Cdme No. 9 of 2d7. fhe explaiation offered by the respondents indicates that the Gram Panchayat authorities of Bichkunda Village were engaged in a drive to remove illegal encroachments, during which the police authorities extended lawful protection' The incident in question appears to have ocrurred at the petitioner's shop in the course of that operation. Considering this factual background, coupled with the registration of Cime No. 9 of 2017, and in the absence of any material evidence substantlating the allegation of physical assault as claimed by the petitionei, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations of physical abuse against respondents Nos- 4 and 5 are not bome out by the record.

8. As regard.s the petitione/s written complaint dated 17.01 '2017' if the petitioner was aggrieved by the alleged non-registration of a case, he ought to have pursued the remedies available under the Cr'P'C', including those under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200- Without availing such effective altemative statutory remedies, invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia is not maintainable, except in exceptional circumstances. This principle has been I l I I ir; !E- \ -,_{!lr=,i I 4 clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakii Vasu v. State of Uttar Pndesh & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907) and M. Subnmaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387).

9. Accordingly, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if the cause of action still survives, the prayer for directing registration of a crime is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the respondentypolice authorities are directed to refrain from interfering with the petitioner's right to life and personal liberty, except in strict conformity with law.

10. With the above observations and directions, this Writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.L.VIJAYA LAKSHM! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,1 L? SECTION OFFICER Telangana. Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of 2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana Office at Lakdikapool, 3. The S^u_perintgldgg of !o!ice,!&lnaryddy District, Kamareddy 4. One CC to SRI M.BHUSHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 6. One CC to SRI JAYSURYA VISHNUVARDHAN, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CD Copies PSK. Hyderabad. [OUT] To HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER WP.No.31687 of 2017 /:' r ':' ,r;, 12 tfti M ,,; \t,; \ii'+ ^ \--i.s.'t ,,^1i*l)17 t^.''l .'?''l .\--.: :.- __:.;-ij:-- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o \r