1. [t/s. Nowhera Shaik v. l-2018 submitted by

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the oi cumrltances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High courl rnay be preased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to restrain the respon 1 >nts ,i and 5 herein and their followers from causing any sort of hindrance ,r ha rdship to the petitioners and its business operations, pending disposal of th : ma n Wp. Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. DIYAVAR HUSSIAN SHAIK counsel forthe Respondents No 1 To 3: sRr D. PRADEEP,l ip FoR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No 4 To g: _- The Court made the following: ORDER ,,.,,. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TITE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33287 OF 2OLg DATED: o5.12,2o25 Between: Ms.Nowhera Shaik and another. . . . Petitioners AND The State of Telanga-na, Rep., by its Principal Secretar5r, Home Department and 8 others. ::ORDER:: ... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature o[ Writ of Mandamus (a) directing respondents Nos.2 to 3 to take appropriatc and immediate action pursuant to the representation dated 18-08-20 18 submitted by the petitioners here in, against respondents Nos.4 and 5 in accordance with law; (b) directing respondents 2 and 3 to prevent respondents 4 and 5 from posting false and defamatory statements against the petitioners in the social media of respondents 6 to t herein; (c) directing respondents 2 and 3 to implement the injunction orders passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hvderabad 2 in IA.No.3479 of 2018 in OS.No.SO7 of il( 26 07 -2OlA and 3O-O8-20 18; (d) to initiat,: proceedings against respondent No,5 h violation of the injunction orders passed b1' : Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyde IA.No.3479 of 2018 in OS.No.5O7 of 2( 26 07-2)la and 30-O8-2018; (e) directing r: land 3 to issue necessary directions to resF to t herein to prevent Respondent No. 5 frc any defamatory and derogatory st articles/videos against the petitioners, respective social media platform (f) And pass,. L8 dated oont.empt :rein for Le Hon'ble 'abad in 1 8 ,lated iPon,lents rndents 6 rr posting rtements/ on their

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners

3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assista: , Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 .o 3 4 . Learned Assistant Government Pleader for l{orrre submits that the petitioners' representation dated 18.08. )018i was duly considered by the police authorities concer::d and, after conducting an enquiry, the sarne was c.t sed with ari endorsement of "false." Hence, the contention o[ the petitioners that no action was taken on their representation i; unlounded. It is further submitted that the other prayers me de in the writ petition are merely consequential to the main re1 ef, n amely, the registration of a crime and initiation of proceeding s by the police. In rriew of the said developments, nothing furt.L er remains for qr\- adjudication in this matter, and therefore, dismissal of the , petition is praYed for. 5 I have perused the material placed on record' 6 The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos'2 ald 3 failed to take immediate action pursuant to their representation dated 18.08.2018' The petitioners have also sought directions to restrain the unofhcial respondents from posting false and defamatory statements against them ' to implement the injunction order passed in I'A' No'3479 of 20 1B in O.S.No.5OTof2Ol8,andtoinitiatecontemptproceedings against the unofficial respondents' 7 . The explanation offered by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home demonstrates that the complaint submitted by the petitioners was duly considered' and after an enquiry, the same was closed as "false'" This clearly indicates that the respondent police authorities have exercised their jurisdiction and applied their mind to the petitioner's representation. Accordingly, the contention that representation was ignored or not acted upon is devoid of merit' The additional allegations relating to defamatory statements by the unofhcial respondents are, as rightly contended' merely 4 consequential to the main grievance and cannot r nd ependently sustain the present writ petition.

8. It is also a well-settled proposition of implementation or enforcement of an injunction c law that the -der passed by a competent civil court cannot be sought throug -': ,e writ petition under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India' I fLe erppropriate course available to a party seeking enforcement c I an injunction order is to approach the same civil court that gre; t.ed such order for appropriate relief, including by invoking its Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Pr pov,/ers under rcedure, 1908. Hence, the prayer for implementation of the inj- n.ction order in the present proceedings is legally unsustainable' g . Insofar as the petitioner's grievance l egarding non- registration of a crime or alleged inaction by the 1r riice authorities is concerned, the legal position on this aspect is well settled. In Sakin Vasu u. State of U.P' & Otlrcrs, AIR 20( B SC 907, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that rv ren a grievance pertains to the failure of the police to register a F Lrst [nformation Report (FIR) or to conduct a proper investigation, the appropriate remedy is not by way of a writ petition under A ticle 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the (l rde of Criminal 5 Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.') provides a complete and efficacious mechanism to address such grievances

10. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judgments, including M. Subramaniam u. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2O2O SC 387, wherein a three-Judge Bench reiterated that al aggrieved person must first avail statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C., such as by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Cr.P.C., rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the hrst instance. The Court further emphasized that the extraordinar5z jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised only in rare and exceptional circumstalces where there is manifest illegality or failure of Justlce

11. In light of the settled legal position and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinarJr circumstances warranting interference under Article 226, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 fBNSS")) provides adequate ald efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioners are at liberty to pursue in .accordance with law, if their grievance still survives. 6

12. Accordingly, with the above noted liberty, I re \.[,rit petition stards dismissed. There shall be no order as to co i1,s. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shal stand closed. .,^ t! ll i?f_1,Hltf.T[iH //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, '1. One CC to SRt. D|YAVAR HUSSTAN SHA|K, Advocare llrpUr)l ' lV,i"?r",,?ll rsfifoR 3 Two CD Copies HOME ,Hish court ror the state cr rerangana at PVL HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 ORDER WP.No.33287 ot 2018 t )( 1ii,fiffisrT55 ,{ ..\ [r lJ ll I 1 lti/ll II J ) / -t Dt \: .:ii.,:,1Yl DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS di9 s