The High Court · 2025

Line, Srinagar Colony, Suryapet, Suryapet District- Durajpally, Village, Chiwemla Mandal Suryapet District.

5. fvlondikathi Saidulu, S/o. Bhiksham Ag6d 50 years, Occ Agriculture' Rl/o. Durajpally Village, Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet District. o. Pottdiinlira Velraiah, S/o. late Janaiah, Aged 4O years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. z. eottdiinjira Rdnuka, W/o. P.Veeraiah, Aled 34 years, Occ agriculture, Rl,/o. Durajpally Village, Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet District. Durajpallyvillage,ChiwemlaMandal,SuryapetDistrict. ...pETlTlONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. Suryapet District.

2. Superintendent of Police, Suryapet, Suryapet District, 3. Th; Station House Officer, Chiwemla P.S. Suryapet Circle, Suryapet, a. Pot[adiniara Venkanna, S/o. Late Janaiah, Aged 47 years,.Occ Police Head Constable, Suryapet Rural Police Station, Fl/o Durajpally Village, Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet 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 direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to follow the procedure as contemplated under Cr.P.C., and not to arrest the petitioners without lssuing mandatory notice, and further direct the Respondent No. 3 to conduct enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioners on 5.5.2017 at '10.30 a.m. against the Respondent No.4, to investigate into the matter and file necessary report, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 25738 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma ,be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 not to harass and arrest the petitirr rers herein Pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI NIVARTHI M.S Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: SRI R.LAXMIKAI\I 'H REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FOR HO! E ,a) THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAITIJI WRIT PETITION No. 2o941OF 2Ol7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to issue a direction more particularlu in the nature of wrlt of mandamus directinq the Respondent No.3 to follow the procedure as contemplated under Cr.P.C., and not to orrest the petitioners wtthout issuing mandatory notice, and fufther direct the Respondent No.3 to conduct enqulru on the complaint Iodqed bu the petitloners on 05.05.201 7 oL 1O.3O a-m. aqainst the Responclent No.4, to inuestiqctte into the natter and ftle necessary report, in the interest of 1ustice....."

2. Heard Mr.M.S.Nivarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as there was inaction on the part of the police authorities in registering the crime on the report liled by the petitioner dated O5.05.2017, seeking necessary directions this petition has been filed. He further pleads that, per contra, the police authorities have registered the crime in Crime No.82 of 20 17 basing that report hled by the unofficial respondent and he sought for following due procedure. 2

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader u,o rld submit that the respondents-police authorities never rece ' ed the alleged report dated 05.05.2017. Even otherwise, if the I )lice authorities failed to register the crime, the petitioners oug- t to have abide the proper a-lternative remedies available under I rw and without exhausting them, approaching this Court, \rticle 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. That r part, the police authorities would strictly abide the procedure c,) ltemplated and as there is no specific version as to violation ot' any guideiines, prayed for dismissal ol the petition.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The contest of the petitioner is in two-f c td. Firstly, the repdrt lodged by him has not acted upon by the rolice, and this aspect no more res intigra, from a three-judgr Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in M.Subramanio.m Vs. 5..'qnaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387) has fortihed that the petition rr/complainant without edsting a-lternative remedies a.z rilable under Cr.P.C/BNSS cannot avail the remedy under articl e 226 of constitution of India, and that being the position, the contention to these extent stands not-maintainable. Howeve , the rights are : i I 3 reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law, if cause still survives.

7. In regard to second aspect, though there is no specihc averment, much less material to show that the police authorities have not followed any stipulation under Cr.P.C and even considering the rbsponse of the respondents-police that they would abide, considering the apprehension, respondents-police a-re directed to strictly abide by the procedure safeguard contemplated under Cr.P.C and the settled judiciat pronouncements in conducting proceedings in Crime No.82 of 20t7.

8. With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/i

1. The Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secre tariat Bd of Telangana. Superintendent of Polic e, Suryapet, Suryapet Distri The Station House Offi cer, Chiwemla P.S. Suryapet Suryapet District 2 .)

4. One CC to SRI NIVARTHI M.S, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court fdr the Siate of Tetangana, at 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] SD/-B.REKHA SISTANT R R CTION OFFICER , Hyderabad, State ircle, Suryapet, To PSK. HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 ORDER WP.No.20941 of 2017 \iii SI4 Co 3 JAN 2026 I ';-, '-. 7z i) j{ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \b C,r- o, D