The High Court · 2025

circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly orre in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents no,2 and 3 in not taking any action basing on a complaint filed by : i I I I ; i l a 1 i l i l I the petitipner, dated 29-5-2017 against the respondents no. to 6 by registering a FIR as the contents of the said complaint constitutes cogniz lble and non-bailable offences, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and vi rlative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 rf the Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the provisions of the Crimir /' al Procedure Code. Consequently, direct the respondents no.2 and 3 to take ner essary action against the respondents no.4 to 6 basing on the complaint submil .ed by the petitioner, dated 29-5-2017 in accordance with Law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2otlilWPMP. NO: 26621 OF 20171 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the c i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Co rrt may be pleased to direct the respondents no.2 and 3 to take necessar! action against the respondents no.4 to 6 basing on the complaint submitted l) the petitioner, dated 29-5-2017 in accordance with Law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI R. LAXMIKAII lH REODY, AGP FOR HCII IE Counsel forthe Respondents No.4 to 6: - The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.21648 OF 2011 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "to issue an order or direclion more particularly one in the natwe of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ orfur or direction fuclaring the dction of the respondents no.2 und 3 in nol laking any action basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner, dated 29-5-2017 against the respondents no.4 to 6 by registering a FIR os the conlents of the said complaint constitutes cognizable and non-bailable offences. is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural juslice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 2l of the Constitution of India and also contrdry to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code- Consequently, direct the respondents no.2 and 3 to take necessary aclion agoinst the respondents no.4 to 6 basing on lhe complaint suhmitted by the petitioner, dated 29-5-2017 in accordance with Law and to pass '.

2. Heard Mr.K.Venumadav, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing lor respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. The sum and substance ol the prayer of this writ p€tition that the respondents have not taken action upon the representation, dated29.05.2017, filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondents would submit that the writ petition is per se tlot 2 maintainable in terms of the law laid down in the r ase of Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesht, therefore, prayed o dismiss the petition.

5. It is by now well settled that, invoking the v'r it jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution o f lndia without exhausting the altemative remedy is contrary to ti r dictum laid down in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Utttu' Pradesh2 and the recent decision of the three Judge Bench ot the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Subramaniam o,r I Ors. Vs. S. Janaki and Orl, fortified the dictum laid down i r the case of Sakiri Vasu supra and held that the writ of mandar rus cannot be issued directing the respondent authorities to regist: FIR / Crime even though the complaint indicates the commissiot, rl an offence. Thus, leaving open to the petitioner to avail approprii :c j urisdiction in regard to the complaint dated 29.05 .2017 .

6. In view of the settled position of [aw, the rrayer of the petitioner is not permissible. Accordingly, this r.v it petition is ' 2008 (2) SCC ztog r 2oo8 (z) scc 409 I (zo2o) 16 scc 728 3 dismissed reserving the right of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECT|ON OFFTCER

1. One CC ro SRt K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCI 2. fwo CCs to Gp for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at 3. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] MP GJP pnCr. HIGH COURT DATI:D:08/09/2025 e IAF1 \.'a\ ); 8 ttJlN?tfli I * * ' -* ORDER WP.Ncr 21648 of 2017 l ! I DISMISSING THE \I IRIT PETITION WI']'HOUT COSTS s\tl>e