Puli Ashok Kumar v. 1. The State of Telangana

4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Manthani, Peddapalli District. 5. Smt. Thota Malleshwari, W/o. Rajalingu, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.5-108/A, Main Road, Manthani, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 and 4 in not registering the crime against the 5th respondent on my complaint dated 03-06- 2025 and 31-05-2025, respectively, for illegal mutation of sth respondent by fabrication of documents, in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0- 21 Gts., in Sy.No.898,situated at Manthani Village Shivar, Manthani lVlandal, Peddapalli District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natura! lustice, and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to register the FIR against the 5th respondent, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Sec;tion 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 4 to register the FIR against the 5th respondent, for fabricatron of documents, in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.O- 2'l Gts. in Sy No.898, srtuated at [Manthani Village Shivar, Manthani [\rlandal, Peddapalli District, pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THIMMARAJU RAMCHANDHER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.S: - - - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 31971 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: ".-.to rssue a Wit, Order or Direction, more paiicularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in not registeing the crime against the dh respondent on the complaints of the petitioner dated 03-06-2025 and 31-05-2025, respectively, for iltegat mutation of Stt' respondent by fabrication of documents, in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-21 Gts., in Sy. No. 898, situated at Manthani Village Shivar, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the pinciples of natural iustice, and consequently direct the Respondent No. 4 to register the FIR against the Sth respondent, in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders . . ."

2. Heard [\4r. Thimmaraju Ramchander Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the respondent police authorities in registering a crime against the 5th respondent based on the petitioner's representations dated 03.06.2025 and 31 .05.2025. *."\ -- 2 N I R,JI lY/.P. Na )t 971 of202i

4. Learned Assistant Government preader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to regisler a criminal case, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia, in view of the well-setfled legal position taid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having submitted written comptaints dated 03.06.202S and 31.05.2025, the concerned Police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inactron, the petitioner has invoked the writ juriscliction of this court under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well setfled and in Sakiri Vasu v Stafe of u.P & Others (AtR 2OOB SC 907), the Hon,bte 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 under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal procedure, 1g73 ("Cr P.C ') (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances. I\.fR, / lY/. P. No. )1971 of 202i 8 This principle has been consistently realfirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AtR 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 Article 226,lhe relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. (or the corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20n), rt the cause of action still survives

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI TH||\iIMARAJU RAMCHANDRA RAO.Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUl-l

3. Two CD Copies PMK TKS HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 ORDER WP.No.31971 of 2025 1 S J ) ? 3 * * PITC; DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .,.t CDV'*' 4y M ^^\ r\t't