The High Court · 2017

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, mbre particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.2 to 4 in initiating penal action against the Sth Respondent under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Money Laundering Act 2OO2 and other applicable penal laws as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 to initiate proceedings under law including.by issuing a further direction to the 6th respondent to conduct an investigation/probe in respect of Tenders and Contracts of private persons catering of food, on during the course of 100 years of celebration Osmania University on 26th Aptil,2017 to 28th April, 2017 on the eve of centenary celebration and prosecute the unofficial respondents and others in accordance with law. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit. filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the respondents 2lo 4 lo consider the representation of the petitioner made against the respondents 5 and 6, dated 08-06-2017, pending disposal of the above writ petition. 2 F o 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 direct the 6th Respondent to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the subject matter and submit e preliminary enquiry report to this Hon'ble Court in regard to the acts of omission :rnd commission of the Respondent No. 8, grant of contracts. Counsel for l:he Petitioner: SRI G.GANGA VENU GOPALA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI CH JAGANNATHA RAO, SC FOR AGP FOR HOfrlE Counsel for the Respondent No.s: - The Court made the following: ORDER OSMANIA UNI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 3084d-OF 2077 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "....to grant an order, direction, or writ more so in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents No 2 to 4 in initiating penal action against the Respondent under the provisions 'th of Prevention of Conuption Act 1988 and the Money Laundering Act 2002 and other applicable penal laws as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondenfs No.2 to 4 to initiate proceedings under law including by issuing a further direction to the 6th reqondent to conduct an investigatiordprobe in rcsped of Tenders and @ntracts of yivate persons catering of food on during the course of 1O0 years of celebration Osmania University on 26th April 2017 to 28th April 2017 on the eve of centenary celebration and pro*cute the unofficial respondents and others in accordance with law.."

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistrant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition---namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal casH's 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 Court.

5. I have carefully perused the materials placed on recotd. 2

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 08.06.2017, the concemed police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Con:;titution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authc,rities to register a crime.

7. The bgal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra.ln Sakr Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievanr>e 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, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Ofhers (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Corrt 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 lvrit jurisdiction of the High Court. J

9. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that rivould wanant intervention by this Court under Arlicle 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.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintrainable. Thege shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDOY SECTION OFFICER IAU PU ,at //TRUE COPY// To '1. One CC to SRt G.GANGA VENU GOPALA KR 2. One CC to SRt CH.JA GANNATHA RAO ,SC 3. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the 4. PSK. TJ Hyderabad [ou Two CD Copies ^Jr HIGH OOURT DATED i2410912025 ORDER WP.No.:30844 of 2017 I C. (J ( * I r,Q 2 3 JA!| 2026 r\ 1 ''. i .-,r DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COETS 2 I tI-( "\