Yedla Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Smt. Dasari Ranganayaki Devi, Wo. Dasari Kondaramaiahl Aged about 65 years, Occ Housewife, Fl/o.H.No.23-54, Netajinagar, Saroomagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. M. Rami Reddy, S/o late tVIr. M. Verra Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business, Fl/o.H.No.5-1 40, Pochammabagh, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District. GPR Housing Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Project Manager, Mr. Karnati Madhusudhan Rao, S/o late Krishna Arjuna Rao, Aged about 33 years, Occ Business, Rl/o, F.C.l., Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pteased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent 3 for not taking any action by over the complaint made by the petitioner dated: 12-06-2017 thereby providing Police ...RESPONDENTS protection to this petitioner for implementation of the jr- r gment and decree passed in O.S.No.116012012 dated 02-01-2017 by Hon'ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, At L.B.Nagar and declare :he same as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and agai I ;t the provisions of C.P.C, IPC and Criminal Procedure Code. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2O17(WPMP. NO: 29267 OF 2O'l7l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr; rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl 'nay be pleased to direct the respondents 5 to consider the complaint dated 12.() i.2017 made by the petitioner and provide police protection to this petitioner for ir plementation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 116012012 dated: 0li.)1-2017 by Hon'ble ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, At L B. Nagar, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. DIVYA AGARWAL REPRES I NTING FOR SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: SRI R. LAXMIKANTFI tEDDy, ASST. GP FOR HOMI Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER ,/r t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 23658 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliel ".....1o pass an ard.er or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaing the action o.f the respondent 3 for not takinq arty rtction bt-1 ouer the compiaint ntade by the petitioner a.ateti li.oa.zol7 therebu prouidina Police protection to this petiLioner for implementation the judqment and decree passed 'irt rl. S- r\io. I 15A/2012 dated O2.O1 2017 bu Hon'ble 1I Aclr.lit.onl) Senior Ciuil Judqe, Ronqa Reddu Distict, At L.B.licqur and decLare the same as iLleqal, arbitrarg ' aqoinst th.e pnnciptes of nahtral iustice and against the prouisions of C P C, tPC tuid. Citt'-inal Procedure Code ctnd pass stt'ch other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court moA deen ftt in the .i.1 t u|\lon( es oI the case. ." Heard Ms. Dirya Agarwal, Iearned counsel representing 2 Mr.Suresh Shiva Sagar, iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikarth Recidy, learned hssistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5' Learned. counsel for the petitioner submiti that the 3. respondent police failed to register a crime on the basis of the report dated 72.06.2017 and also failed to provide protection for implementation of the judgment arld decree passed in O'S' No' 1160 of 2012, dated O2.Ol.2Ol7, by the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L'B' Nagar' Aggrieved 2 thereby, the petitioner has filed the present wri1. I r-'tition seeking \ appropriate directions to the respondent authorities

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the police received the report dated 12.06.21 17 and, upon consideration of the averments therein, found the r:'t ltter to be civil in nature and accordingly closed the report. He furtlt 'r submits that insofar as implementation of the decree is concerred, the proper course for the petitioner is to approach the Execut.i .rn Court, as is the settled legal position in law

5. I have perused the materials on record

6. The contention as to registration of the crime t asing upon the report appears to be properlv addressed by the P<i rce authorities. However, the petitioner is still aggrieved b1, the rnaction as to registration of the crime. The petitioner ought 1 r have availed effective alternative remedies provided under Clo, e of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C)/ BNSS to seek redressal of th,: grievance and without such action invoking the jurisdiction of tlr s Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and with ;,ut exhausting alternative remedies is contralv to the dictums 1e .i '[ down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The lega1 position governinr matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakiri Vasw'r/ I State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2OO8 SC 9OZ)I, the Honble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Articl e 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, i 973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffrrmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2O2O SC 387)2, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifred 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 20O Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. In the light of this said legal preposition and in the absence of any extra ordinary circumstances, this prayer stands not maintainable. The other grievalce of the petitioner is that the Police should have provided protection in the pursuance of the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.1160 of 2Ol2.In this regard, this court in Writ ' etR 2oo8 sc 907 I AItt zozo sc i87 4 a\ Petition No.8699 of 2025, dated 13.O6.2025, held ttLr t the petitioner without showing this steps taken for enforcing I 're decree and Judgment in a civii suit by l1ling the appropriate e:< rcution petition seeking for Police aid for an implementation of Judgr rent and decree under article 226 of tlne constitution is not maintair i ble.

9. In the present case, apart from the plea that I-re police ought to have provided protection in terms of the decree passed by the civil court, the petitioner has not pleaded or demonri rated any steps taken for execution of the said decree. in the :bsence of the petitioner having availed appropriate execution pro<:r ,:dings, seeking police aid directly through a ivrit petition under Ar icle 226 of th.e Constitution of India is not legally sustainable. Fot his reason, the prayer made in the w'rit petition also fails short of r 'arralting relief from this Court.

10. In view of the above circumstances, the ,rit petition is dismissed as not maintainzrble. F{orvever. the rights ,f the petitioner are reserved to avail appropriate renredies before tht competent civii court, if the cause of action still surv'ives. There shrr I be no order as to costs. 5 Miscelianeous Petitions, pending if arry, shall stand closed' SD/- B. REKHA RANi A ISTANT REGIST \ To 1 2 J $S 33 J?i8i?'tr':8 . Two CD CoPies BN TJ ,TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER ..f 3t [i H'"fl?ilil8 ?letangana. tourl ^?El[ l I i I 1 rr- SI4 1tr iB ;,rl?F F * OeSir', ii HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ( * l' 'tr it (_) 'l r' 'l ,".r ' 1.. :/ ORDER WP.No.23658 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS KS E-[,1x.