Kammari Manikyamma Wo. Chandramouli v. Secretarate, Hyderabad

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 respondent .No.2 to 5 to register the crime against the 7th & 8th Respondents, and take necessary action as per law, basing on the complaint of the petitioner Dated 06-02-2017, by providing protection from their hands forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6to8:- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.6691 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is flled under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief ".. .Io issue a writ order or direction more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaing the action of the Stt' respondent in not registering the crime against /h and Bth Respondents, basing on the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.02.2017, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct tlte respondent Nos.2 to 5 to register the crime against 7th and dh Respondents and take necessary action as per law, basing on the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.02.2017 by providing protection from their hands and pass such other order or orders. . ."

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submits that the relief sought rn the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case-is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled leqal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record. 2 Nn(/ lV.P. No. 6691 ol2017 -

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 06.02 2017, the concerned 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 Constitution of lndia, seekrng a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a cnme

6. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra ln Sakld Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907). the Hon'ble 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 underArticle 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') (now Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances 7 . This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Olhers (AlR 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 NTR,/ It7.P. No.669l of 2017 under Sections 156(3)or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. 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, the relief sought by the petiiioner cannot be entertarned. 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 her grievance still subsist I 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/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies Ay BM PSK HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 NES ! / * 2 B JAt,l 202[ C)\ ORDER WP.No.6691 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,'tl 1 11,